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

[Bodakane]

There is nothing against community watch programs being armed, if the laws allow it. Do a quick search. You'll see a few articles from police departments saying that you shouldn't be armed, and you should only observe. Not that you can't be armed. You should follow your own advice, but based on your post history, you won't.

Lol. All the neighborhood watch organizations say don't carry a gun. The cops say don't carry a gun when on watch duty. But you want to make some stupid fucking argument that I implied it is illegal to carry a gun on watch duty? Fucking really?

I mean, the fucking mental gymnastics it is taking to get there is beyond absurd.

So again as I said, community watch programs are not armed. And as you said, their job is to observe and report. Kyle, said in an interview minutes before he shot people, that he was there purposely TO PUT HIMSELF IN HARM'S WAY.

To recap, community watch programs aren't armed and only watch, and that is your big fucking argument for Ritterhosue how was armed and interfered? Cool, please keep lecturing me.

[Felya]

To recap, community watch programs aren't armed and only watch, and that is your big fucking argument for Ritterhosue how was armed and interfered? Cool, please keep lecturing me.

That’s the fun part... we don’t need police, as long as we have 17 year olds with guns roaming the street... are we some shit hole country where kids can’t roam the streets with guns? That’s not Trump’s America...

[Draco-Onis]

I worked as a security guard during university. The first thing that was stated during the extensive 4 hour training (where no certification or licence was given) was that you are not law enforcement. You have no special powers. Your job is to observe and report, and as a last resort, under very specific circumstances, detain. Hired or not, you have no special rights. Community watches do not get special stand your ground laws in the vast majority of cases. They're covered by the same laws a citizen is.

No, a person should not pick up a a gun they don't have a license for. That hasn't been proven in this case. If it was illegal, he should be charged. Those are laws. It has been pointed out several times already though that Wisconson has some badly drafted gun laws that have exemptions for 17 year olds.

There is nothing illegal about a person "patrolling" the streets. What they do when something occurs determines if they are in violation of the law. Why is this so hard to understand?

Just so we are clear you are saying you can get a gun legally and go to any state and patrol the streets looking for crime and if anything happens you can claim self defense after inserting yourself in this situation. What part of what you are describing isn't vigilantism? Is Rittenhouse not a vigilante because he wasn't wearing a costume

[Felya]

Just so we are clear you are saying you can get a gun legally and go to any state and patrol the streets looking for crime and if anything happens you can claim self defense after inserting yourself in this situation. What part of what you are describing isn't vigilantism? Is Rittenhouse not a vigilante because he wasn't wearing a costume

If it’s good for Rwanda, it’s good enough for me!

Edit: Oops... I though you said armed children patrolling the street... my bad?

[Krastyn]

The exemption is for hunting, he wasnt hunting unless his lawyer wants to argue he was hunting people I guess.

This is the poorly drafted law part. The intent of the law is likely for hunting. The wording of the law however, just outlines that if you're 17, and have the certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval, then section 948.60 doesn't apply. It doesn't specifically state "only for hunting", "while you are hunting", or anything like that. Just if you have the certificate of accomplisment, you're good. That's why it's badly worded.

[Draco-Onis]

If it’s good for Rwanda, it’s good enough for me!

Edit: Oops... I though you said armed children patrolling the street... my bad?

Good point child soldiers are fine too because you don't need to be 18 years old to do this.

[Felya]

This is the poorly drafted law part. The intent of the law is likely for hunting. The wording of the law however, just outlines that if you're 17, and have the certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval, then section 948.60 doesn't apply. It doesn't specifically state "only for hunting", "while you are hunting", or anything like that. Just if you have the certificate of accomplisment, you're good. That's why it's badly worded.

Perfect! Sounds like we have a replacement for the police force, without any laws needing to change. Why do we need police?

- - - Updated - - -

Good point child soldiers are fine too because you don't need to be 18 years old to do this.

Think about it... this whole thing started over several adult cops, standing bye as another choked a man to death. If this kid was there instead, there would have been no chocking... He did him self, what 4 coups couldn’t do... useless...

[Krastyn]

Just so we are clear you are saying you can get a gun legally and go to any state and patrol the streets looking for crime and if anything happens you can claim self defense after inserting yourself in this situation. What part of what you are describing isn't vigilantism? Is Rittenhouse not a vigilante because he wasn't wearing a costume

Holy fuck man. You need to take a break from creating all these straw men.

It is not illegal to carry walk around with an open carry, in an open carry state (having appropriate documentation, even if it isn't your state), and walk around town looking for people breaking the law. Up until that point, nothing has been done wrong. It's stupid, and a waste of time, but it's that persons time to waste.

Now, if an altercation occurs, then it comes down to the circumstances of what actually happened.

[Felya]

Holy fuck man. You need to take a break from creating all these straw men.

It is not illegal to carry walk around with an open carry, in an open carry state (having appropriate documentation, even if it isn't your state), and walk around town looking for people breaking the law. Up until that point, nothing has been done wrong. It's stupid, and a waste of time, but it's that persons time to waste.

Now, if an altercation occurs, then it comes down to the circumstances of what actually happened.

Let’s end it and bring it back to the original point of the thread... why do we need police? Fuck reform... we have children without any training doing a better job...

Edit: Just a reminder... not only didn’t the person who got shot, that lead to these protests not expressing his open carry rights... but, was shot because cops thought he reached for a knife... as his children watched...

Edit 2: If he is found guilty of murder... are you gonna riot for justice reform?

[Themius]

Let’s end it and bring it back to the original point of the thread... why do we need police? Fuck reform... we have children without any training doing a better job...

Reform is stupid frankly. The fbi admits many police departments have white nationalist issues with police working with, being from, or being sympathetic to hate groups.

The fuck is police reform going to do if we don’t address the whole police working with terror threats problem. Which the fbi also views as they can’t do so much because of first amendment. Because what’s wrong with cops exercising power on people. Whole being nazis

[Draco-Onis]

Holy fuck man. You need to take a break from creating all these straw men.

It is not illegal to carry walk around with an open carry, in an open carry state (having appropriate documentation, even if it isn't your state), and walk around town looking for people breaking the law. Up until that point, nothing has been done wrong. It's stupid, and a waste of time, but it's that persons time to waste.

Now, if an altercation occurs, then it comes down to the circumstances of what actually happened.

You are calling straw men because every time I describe what happened it makes you look bad for defending it. But you just agreed with me nothing wrong with patrolling around in other states with your gun looking for crime. So why do we need police officers? Since these "patrollers" are fine and dandy. They can even be judge jury and executioner like Rittenhouse.

[Bodakane]

Hey guys never forget.....

Neighborhood watch groups (and the police) tell neighborhood watchers to not carry a weapon when on patrol and to only observe and report, but its perfectly legal to walk around armed on patrol as long as you are legally allowed to have that weapon...and that is the new argument FOR Rittenhouse not being a vigilante and more like a neighborhood watch because he was illegally armed while on "patrol" after he admitted on video he was there not to merely observe but put himself in harm's way.

You literally cannot make this stuff up.

[Felya]

Reform is stupid frankly. The fbi admits many police departments have white nationalist issues with police working with, being from, or being sympathetic to hate groups.

The fuck is police reform going to do if we don’t address the whole police working with terror threats problem. Which the fbi also views as they can’t do so much because of first amendment. Because what’s wrong with cops exercising power on people. Whole being nazis

I’m frankly tired of this shit... these protests were because an unarmed man was shot multiple times by police, because they thought he was a threat... this thread is now about a kid that hung out with police, while carrying an automatic weapon, then was not stopped by police after shooting 3 people... being justified.

What this thread is now, proves what this thread started out being. There are 2 different justice systems in this country and it’s not just systemic, it’s cultural.

[Krastyn]

Lol. All the neighborhood watch organizations say don't carry a gun. The cops say don't carry a gun when on watch duty. But you want to make some stupid fucking argument that I implied it is illegal to carry a gun on watch duty? Fucking really?

I mean, the fucking mental gymnastics it is taking to get there is beyond absurd.

So again as I said, community watch programs are not armed. And as you said, their job is to observe and report. Kyle, said in an interview minutes before he shot people, that he was there purposely TO PUT HIMSELF IN HARM'S WAY.

To recap, community watch programs aren't armed and only watch, and that is your big fucking argument for Ritterhosue how was armed and interfered? Cool, please keep lecturing me.

Yes, the mental gymnastics you use are indeed impressive. Armed community watch programs don't exist. Nope. Not here. Or here.

If you want to keep throwing around the quote about Kyle stating he was there purposely to put himself in harm's way, you could at least get the quote right to not sound like an idiot.

If there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way and that's why I have my rifle, to protect myself obviously.

But hey, accuracy hasn't been your strong point this whole discussion.

[Felya]

But hey, accuracy hasn't been your strong point this whole discussion.

Yeah, although ignoring shit seems to be yours. Can I say I’m going to jump into harms way and bring a gun to protect my self, as self defense? Can I go out of my way to seek harm, to the point that I need to bring a gun, then claim self defense?

Edit: Do you often defend others in self defense? (By others, I mean property as well.)

[Bodakane]

Yes, the mental gymnastics you use are indeed impressive. Armed community watch programs don't exist. Nope. Not here. Or here.

If you want to keep throwing around the quote about Kyle stating he was there purposely to put himself in harm's way, you could at least get the quote right to not sound like an idiot.



But hey, accuracy hasn't been your strong point this whole discussion.

Do you really think you proved your point and not mine?

[Krastyn]

You are calling straw men because every time I describe what happened it makes you look bad for defending it. But you just agreed with me nothing wrong with patrolling around in other states with your gun looking for crime. So why do we need police officers? Since these "patrollers" are fine and dandy. They can even be judge jury and executioner like Rittenhouse.

It's a straw man because you take part of what I say, and then tack something completely different that I did not say. I at no point said " if anything happens you can claim self defense after inserting yourself in this situation". That was entirely you with your dishonest, strawman shitposting. The fact you can't even see that tells me You're not willing to have an honest discussion, so have a good day.

[Felya]

It's a straw man because you take part of what I say, and then tack something completely different that I did not say. I at no point said " if anything happens you can claim self defense after inserting yourself in this situation". That was entirely you with your dishonest, strawman shitposting. The fact you can't even see that tells me You're not willing to have an honest discussion, so have a good day.

What? That’s literally what the guy did... he had his mom drive him there and he was so scared, he brought a gun. Why did he bring the gun? To protect him self? Because he was scared and was going to use the gun, or because he knew the future and saw the need?

You are arguing premeditated self defense... think about that...

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like a loop hole that was left open for reasons exactly like this.

Can you find a single time such a loophole has been used outside of hunting?

Either way, this is just highlighting how backward US law is.

Can we not just trust randoms on the Internet? If there is no precedent for it being used like this, there is no loophole and it’s randoms grasping at straws.

[Krastyn]

Yeah, although ignoring shit seems to be yours. Can I say I’m going to jump into harms way and bring a gun to protect my self, as self defense? Can I go out of my way to seek harm, to the point that I need to bring a gun, then claim self defense?

Edit: Do you often defend others in self defense? (By others, I mean property as well.)

I ignore most of the things you post because you're either deliberately asking out of context questions, or they are questions I've already answered in other posts that you clearly can't be bothered to read.

Provide the details of the situation, and I'll let you know. There is no blanket "yes it is self-defense" or "no it is not self-defense". As I said, for this specific case, based on the evidence released so far, I think it is more likely that a jury would find him not guilty. There are a lot of details we still don't know yet. It wouldn't completely surprise me if he was also found guilty. Regardless of which way it is found though, I still think they need to change open carry rules, and fix the ambiguous area in Wisconsin gun laws specifically.

I have in the past guarded both people, and property, as well as stepped into situations where someone is being attacked. Both for personal reasons, and for work. I don't own or care for guns though, and I am careful when dealing with people the level of physicality to use.

[Bodakane]

I have in the past guarded both people, and property, as well as stepped into situations where someone is being attacked. Both for personal reasons, and for work. I don't own or care for guns though, and I am careful when dealing with people the level of physicality to use.

None of those things is what happened. Rioitenhouse and the rest of the white nationalist militia he showed up with were vigilantes. Why are you struggling with this very simple concept?