Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Pendragon]

He was defending himself from armed BLM rioters who were attacking him and running at him with a gun and other weapons. God bless him.

Jacob Blake is a violent rapist trying to break into a house, did not listen to police, and had a knife in his car. He deserved what he got.

End of.
[Infraction]

[Elegiac]

He was defending himself from armed BLM rioters who were attacking him and running at him with a gun and other weapons. God bless him.

Jacob Blake is a violent rapist trying to break into a house, did not listen to police, and had a knife in his car. He deserved what he got.

End of.

*Gestures at the gallery of Europeans with Opinions™ on American law enforcement that do not seem to be couched in verifiable fact*

Citations, please. Otherwise your seat is waiting.

[Mekh]

and had a knife in his car.

You don't? That's like a standard recommendation along with a hammer to break the glass. What kind of death trap are you driving?

[Pendragon]

*Gestures at the gallery of Europeans with Opinions™ on American law enforcement that do not seem to be couched in verifiable fact*

Citations, please. Otherwise your seat is waiting.

Cringe!

Knife found at the scene - call to the police says he wasn't supposed to be there, resisted arrest, tazer didn't work, and he attempted to enter/reach into his car.

Sexual assault, violent history. Even though PolitiFact is trying to defend him by debunking the claims he raped a child, they happily admit his true crimes: Sexual assault, pulling a gun, etc

As for the young man defending himself against BLM marxist thugs, I won't link to anything as it contains very graphic videos and stills and I'm not sure about the rules on this website regarding that material. Also contains some personal info I believe.

You can find detailed timelines with video clips, stills, etc on reddit (actualpublicfreakouts, publicfreakout) that show that this wonderful young man was truly defending himself in a life or death situation against armed BLM thugs.

Now I expect you to perform some mental gymnastics and come up with a problem with what I've linked, or make some sort of excuse..so do feel free to do your own research regarding the incidents and look outside of the little bubble you probably live in

- - - Updated - - -

You don't? That's like a standard recommendation along with a hammer to break the glass. What kind of death trap are you driving?

yOu DoN't?! Duuuh.
That's not the point. The violent rapist Jacob Blake has a violent history. Ignored orders from the police, resisted the tazer, and attempted to reach into his vehicle. Have a good think about that if you're able to.

[Astalnar]

It's pathetically adorable you think someone retroactively having been convicted of felon means it's ok they were shot in the first place, when that information wasn't known. Holy fuck you people have abandoned all morals and logic.

Nobody was retroactively convicted of felony. But they were all convicted felons. I find it interesting that so many people here feel the need to defend a stupid dead pedophile. I don't, he was scum, looking for trouble. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

And yes, it is ok they got shot, because the kid was defending his own life. He had every right to shoot at them. Had they not charged at him, attacked him, kicked him in the head, threw stuff at him, and pulled a gun on him they would all still be alive. Or at least, wouldn't have died at the hand of a 17-yearold.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Will y'all ever actually link to sources for this shit so the information can be verified? Maybe so we can do the digging to find out the age of the minor involved? Or are y'all just gonna keep posting selective screencaps and then making further claims without additional evidence?

And, again, as repeatedly pointed out, what does his prior criminal history have to do with his murder? What relevance does his background have? If he was a saint who volunteered at a retirement home and attended church every Sunday, would that suddenly make his killing not OK?

http://archive.is/dqFEg

Now go dig, and try to defend a stupid dead pedophile who screamed atop of his lungs: "shoot me n-word", and then chased after an armed man until he got shot in the head.

He wasn't murdered. He was killed while trying to attack a minor. Even worse, he was part of the mob who chased after minor. I find the very idea of trying to paint such individual as an innocent victim being murdered ludicrous.

To answer you, he could be Saint Peter himself, but if he charged at the kid as the convicted stupid dead pedophile did, the kid would have every right to shoot him in the head. Because it is self defence.

Why is it relevant that all three men who got shot were violent criminals? Because of the court. Because until any video emerges that would show how a kid instigated the mob to start chasing after him, he did everything by the book. He clearly shot to defend his life. He clearly shot only at his attackers, and not randomly. And what is even better, even though it was supposed to be a BLM riot, he managed to shoot 3 white men. On top of that all crooks. No sympathy from the masses there. Now if he shot a woman, a black man, or even a dog, media would ensure the public crucifies him. Instead we have NYT analysing videos and stating it wasn't the 17yo the only one who opened fire.

Do you prefer 17 year old kids arming themselves illegally and heading into a riot to kill people?

Stop with the shifting of the goalposts. He did not arm himself illegally and head into riot to kill people.

Not on "two different accounts" literally both charges note the offence is on one day that's not "two different accounts" that's "two counts related to one instance of criminal activity"

Who cares what you think?

An 18 year old having sex with an underaged person of say 16... is not a pedophile... It isn't only me at least 4 other people noted this.


Seriously who the fuck calls an 18 year old who has sex with a teenager a pedophile????

Do you think 15 year olds who take pictures of themselves should be charged with producing illegal porn and charged with sexually abusing themselves and therefore a danger to minors for "sexual abuse of a minor"??? this was literally what was often happening back in the early 2000s until finally states began passing laws to stop that stupidity.

Also was the terrorist a Technopath?? did he have some power to have the internet in his brain and instantly scan faces and know names and records???

Where is your proof?

You're making stuff up in order to defend a convicted stupid dead pedophile.

His victim could be 2 years old, 6 years old, 9 years old, 11 years old, or 17 years old. Until you prove otherwise, the odds are in my favour. What you and any other mery band of degenerates find acceptable has no merit in this discussion. If it's a sexual intercourse with a minor, it's pedophilia. In some cases even rape, as an underage child is not capable of consenting.

Why do you defend a convicted pedophile? Are you insane?
[Infraction]

[Hinastorm]

Nobody was retroactively convicted of felony. But they were all convicted felons. I find it interesting that so many people here feel the need to defend a stupid dead pedophile. I don't, he was scum, looking for trouble. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

And yes, it is ok they got shot, because the kid was defending his own life. He had every right to shoot at them. Had they not charged at him, attacked him, kicked him in the head, threw stuff at him, and pulled a gun on him they would all still be alive. Or at least, wouldn't have died at the hand of a 17-yearold.

Why is this so hard to grasp?



http://archive.is/dqFEg

Now go dig, and try to defend a stupid dead pedophile who screamed atop of his lungs: "shoot me n-word", and then chased after an armed man until he got shot in the head.

He wasn't murdered. He was killed while trying to attack a minor. Even worse, he was part of the mob who chased after minor. I find the very idea of trying to paint such individual as an innocent victim being murdered ludicrous.

To answer you, he could be Saint Peter himself, but if he charged at the kid as the convicted stupid dead pedophile did, the kid would have every right to shoot him in the head. Because it is self defence.

Why is it relevant that all three men who got shot were violent criminals? Because of the court. Because until any video emerges that would show how a kid instigated the mob to start chasing after him, he did everything by the book. He clearly shot to defend his life. He clearly shot only at his attackers, and not randomly. And what is even better, even though it was supposed to be a BLM riot, he managed to shoot 3 white men. On top of that all crooks. No sympathy from the masses there. Now if he shot a woman, a black man, or even a dog, media would ensure the public crucifies him. Instead we have NYT analysing videos and stating it wasn't the 17yo the only one who opened fire.



Stop with the shifting of the goalposts. He did not arm himself illegally and head into riot to kill people.



Where is your proof?

You're making stuff up in order to defend a convicted stupid dead pedophile.

His victim could be 2 years old, 6 years old, 9 years old, 11 years old, or 17 years old. Until you prove otherwise, the odds are in my favour. What you and any other mery band of degenerates find acceptable has no merit in this discussion. If it's a sexual intercourse with a minor, it's pedophilia. In some cases even rape, as an underage child is not capable of consenting.

Why do you defend a convicted pedophile? Are you insane?

You just admitted to thinking an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is pedophilia. You literally just typed it.

You're a moron.

No critical thinking skills whatsoever.

[Santti]

Wow, the last few dozens of pages have been a wild read. So many trying to justify murder. Like, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Also, welcome back Elegiac.

[Astalnar]

I've yet to see actual evidence of this, no news outlets are reporting it which seems odd if it is true.

Evidence of what? Be more specific, please.

[KaPe]

And once again with the pedophilia...

It doesn't matter. The state in question (or any other, for that matter) doesn't allow for public execution of pedophilies. Especially not by random teenagers - who would also need mind reading powers so they know they're shooting the correct person. Using firearm they are not allowed to own. Without exhausting any option to avoid confrontation and not being in immediate lethal danger. And then shooting two more people. And then escaping the state.

Even if someone believes that (crime X) should be punishable by death, it's not up to random white kid to do this. Nevermind doing it on the streets - even if someone broke into a prison to kill a convicted criminal, they would still be guilty of murder. There are laws and procedures, not vigilante "justice".

[Mekh]

Evidence of what? Be more specific, please.

Nobody has actually linked the alleged pedophile's criminal record. All there is are unsourced screengrabs sometimes not even including the guy's name.

[Astalnar]

Nobody has actually linked the alleged pedophile's criminal record. All there is are unsourced screengrabs sometimes not even including the guy's name.

http://archive.is/dqFEg

It was literally posted a few posts ago.

[Mekh]

http://archive.is/dqFEg

It was literally posted a few posts ago.

Doesn't include the age of the minor as far as I can see.

[Aurrora]

To be clear; eyewitness accounts in the charging documents state that Rittenhouse was walking around with his AR-15 in a low ready position.

This is a low ready, for a rifle;



Anyone your muzzle crosses while you're doing this is someone you're putting at risk of being shot. Ready positions are used in active use instances; you are expecting to have to fire that weapon at a heartbeat's notice. If you aren't, you do not hold it in a ready position.

There's no way Rittenhouse was carrying his AR-15 in a low ready and not threatening bystanders.

He's described by McGinnis as going into a low ready position only after he had turned around after reaching the cars, that would be after a gun was discharged behind him. Of course he would adopt a low ready stance.

"McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that
the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed
downward. The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder."

Also, nice job searching google images for the worst and most threatening low ready example you could find. Low ready means shouldered but pointed towards the ground so no one is in immediate danger of being shot by an accidental discharge.

[Astalnar]

Doesn't include the age of the minor as far as I can see.

Correct. I assume it has to do with the protection of the victim's identity.

[Mekh]

Correct. I assume it has to do with the protection of the victim's identity.

Without it though it might be nothing more than evidence of the outdated sex laws of the early twothousands, when my then-girlfriend and I literally joked about having to stop fooling around for three weeks, when I turned 18 and her birthday was still a few days out.

[Draco-Onis]

Stop with the shifting of the goalposts. He did not arm himself illegally and head into riot to kill people.

But he did it is illegal for a 17 year old to have an assault rifle also illegal for him to take that weapon across state lines. He literally did what you are denying he planned, bragged and headed to another state looking for blood.

[rogueMatthias]

This isn't a rorschach test guys.

There's literally video evidence that the kid was fleeing in terror and trying to get away, while being chased by the first person shot, who'd been threatening people and trying to goad people into physical confrontation all night (Video evidence of this too). This ISN'T anything to do with "Stand your ground laws" - The kid was FLEEING from a violent man who posed a serious risk to his life chasing him. By running away it's clear he was trying to avoid using his weapon. THERE'S VIDEO EVIDENCE OF ALL THIS.

After this he starts running towards the police, with a violent mob chasing him, he trips, and they attack him before he can get to the police. There's no "they were trying to stop an active shooter" defence here - HE was running TOWARDS the police cars, just moments away from him. Again, there's video evidence showing he's trying to escape the situation and his life was in clear danger before he shoots. There's even video of the guy who's arm got shot trying pulling his gun up to his head to shoot him before his arm is shot. When he's clearly trying to escape and run to the police, and you chase him to shoot him in the head first before he can get to them, that's NOT "self-defence", that's attempted execution.

IF he's not allowed to carry at his age, that's clearly punishable. There's clear arguments against why he was there in the first place. BUT, the IRREFUTABLE FACT is that If no-one had CHASED him, tried to severely injure/KILL him and and put him in the position he felt his life was in immediate danger then they wouldn't have died. That's the very definition on self-defence.

Again. VIDEO EVIDENCE OF ALL OF THIS.

All this "he came from another state to fight.." "he fled to another state to avoid punishment.." stuff is crap - he lives 20-30 minutes from there. Likewise, there's no evidence that he's a "White supremacist" - the kid's hispanic. In the same way all the comments about wether the first person shot was or wasn't a pedo are irrelevant to the FACT that he violently pursued him while he was fleeing.

Anyone who watches all the video evidence and just thinks this is "A White supremacist who came to shoot poor peaceful protestors" is being disingenuous, and at best a self-deluding sheep.
[Infraction]

[Aurrora]

Doesn't include the age of the minor as far as I can see.

https://www.mayestelles.com/legal-bl...%20in%20prison.

Given that the sentence was 10 years it's likely the that the offense was a class 2 felony which has a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years, meaning the victim was under the age of 15, if they were 15-18 the mandatory minimum is only 1.5 years. Also Arizona has a 2 year Romeo and Juliet period and he was 18 when he offended, though I'm not sure of if that was law at the time.

[Darththeo]

It depends on the weight of the crime of the BLM supporter. so a paperwork snafu vs looting and assault. No judge is going to agree with you

And since when do leftwingers care about knowing the whole event?

Actually, it doesn't in Wisconsin law. If you are in the process of committing criminal activity, your argument for self defense is automatically weakened and you have to show more than just your life was in danger. It doesn't remove it, but it is a harder approval.

Most Leftwingers care about the whole event, it is right wingers that tend not to care about the whole event and cherry pick data that proves their point. See how they argue against BLM. "Why don't people protest <random white kids death>?" And always in that case, the person who killed the kid was arrested and charged and no one was claiming the kid deserved to be shocked. They ignore the actual argument.

[Elegiac]

This isn't a rorschach test guys.

There's literally video evidence that the kid was fleeing in terror and trying to get away

All of which is rendered irrelevant by his presence in the state with an unlawful firearm and brandishing it against people exercising their Constitutional rights.

Also, all the folks pointing at one of the shooting victims' history: lol, you do realise that implying that the aspiring Y'all Qaeda militant knew about the victim's background would make it premeditated by definition and thus not self-defense, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Cringe!

Knife found at the scene - call to the police says he wasn't supposed to be there, resisted arrest, tazer didn't work, and he attempted to enter/reach into his car.

I have a knife in my handbag most of the time.

Y'all really want to make the argument that a weapon indicates intent to harm in the same breath as bitching about the Second Amendment, huh?

Sexual assault, violent history. Even though PolitiFact is trying to defend him by debunking the claims he raped a child, they happily admit his true crimes: Sexual assault, pulling a gun, etc

What has this to do with an aspiring terrorist illegally trafficking a weapon across state lines looking to start a fight?