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

[Bodakane]

It also says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Also California's magazine ban has been struck down.

Additionally trump is not trying to infringe on your 1a rights. He's trying to stop censorship of information.

I'm telling you 2A has already been infringed and no one is upset you can't have surface to air missiles for example. Surface to air missiles are arms.

he is not trying to stop censorship of anything. He's openly sicking his DoJ on people who say bad things about him. THAT, is censorship. Youtube not wanting to allow whatever is NOT censorship.

Regardless, you ignored the vasty majority of the things I've pointed out about the assault on 1A. You are ok with it, there;'s no amount of doubling back now that will change that. So my question to you is, why do you hate the Constitution so much that you want the obliteration of the very first amendment?

[Machismo]

It also says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Also California's magazine ban has been struck down.

Additionally trump is not trying to infringe on your 1a rights. He's trying to stop censorship of information.

You seem to be ignoring your blatant hypocrisy on the issue. Why do you support bump stock bans?

So much for "shall not be infringed."

[draynay]

Good. then leave stop trying to ban ar-15, ak-47 and 30 round magazines.

Take your bullshit to the appropriate thread.

[Kathandira]

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjmənt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
"copyright infringement"

2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.

Is your right to own a firearm limited?

[Captain N]

This is a sad trolling attempt to get the thread locked -- report him and move on.

[Elegiac]

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

Means a bunch of dead white slaveowners might not have had the best recipe for a civil society. Shocking.

[postman1782]

Verbal threats alone isn't, but when you make verbal threats and charge at someone, even throwing an object, then yes you are a threat especially if you're a bigger person who can take away that persons firearm.

Wrong. Especially when that person you are chasing after was already breaking the law. Because minutes, if not seconds before the charging happened, Rittenhouse pointed his gun at someone else as they were leaving the area to go to their car.

- - - Updated - - -

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

Funny, considering the Supreme Court has upheld lots of bans like attachments and certain guns all the time. So, so far as "shall not be infringed", isn't actually a thing.

- - - Updated - - -

It also says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Also California's magazine ban has been struck down.

Additionally trump is not trying to infringe on your 1a rights. He's trying to stop censorship of information.

Well, the "censorship" is of fake news. Which should absolutely happen. Spreading of fake news, is how Qtards got into prominence, and how Trump got elected, thanks to Russia and whatnot.

[BlackDruid96]

Wrong. Especially when that person you are chasing after was already breaking the law. Because minutes, if not seconds before the charging happened, Rittenhouse pointed his gun at someone else as they were leaving the area to go to their car.
.

I don't think your argument will hold up in court, nor will you see your argument even be used. If they witnessed a crime, then you call the police. You don't shout "shoot me N-word" get angry because he put out the fire you started, charge at him, throw a bag with a water bottle at him then try to take away his gun.

[postman1782]

I don't think your argument will hold up in court, nor will you see your argument even be used. If they witnessed a crime, then you call the police. You don't shout "shoot me N-word" get angry because he put out the fire you started, charge at him, throw a bag with a water bottle at him then try to take away his gun.

When the cops are friendly with a white nationalist militia, you don't call the cops on them, it won't do any good. We know this because of videos of cops giving the militia members water and telling them they are going to funnel the protesters to the militia.

[Aurrora]

It literally is not. You're lying.

Wisconsin law explicitly states that use of lethal force in self defense is forbidden, and I quote, "unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Rosenbaum lunges at Kyle, Kyle begins running away from him. Rosenbaum then throws something at Kyle and another person shoots in his direction, Kyle turns around and finds Rosenbaum right on top of him and he makes not one, but two attempts to grab his weapon. If you don't believe that constitutes a reasonable belief of great bodily harm or death you are an idiot.

Rosenbaum was neither law enforcement nor a good samaritan, nor was Kyle a suspect in any crime. Rosenbaum was in the process of committing multiple felonies against Kyle when he was shot.

If you attempted to do what Rosenbaum did to Kyle when a police officer was responding to a shooting you can be damn sure your ass would be put in the ground, and criminals have been shot for doing exactly that.

[Elegiac]

If you attempted to do what Rosenbaum did to Kyle when a police officer was responding to a shooting you can be damn sure your ass would be put in the ground, and criminals have been shot for doing exactly that.

I'm not sure you entirely realise this is a damning indictment of American law enforcement and an admission of there being systemic issues, lol.

[Endus]

Rosenbaum lunges at Kyle, Kyle begins running away from him. Rosenbaum then throws something at Kyle and another person shoots in his direction,

Bit in red is just untrue. You don't get to make shit up and pretend it's a fact.

Kyle turns around and finds Rosenbaum right on top of him and he makes not one, but two attempts to grab his weapon.

Again, completely false. Rittenhouse fired before Rosenbaum grabbed for the gun. Read the charging documents and stop making shit up or gullibly parroting other people's disinformation. https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Complaint.html

The order of events is that Rittenhouse turned, assumed a low ready position, fired three rounds, and then they describe Rosenbaum grabbing for the gun. Grabbing at the gun of the person trying to shoot you is perfectly reasonable.

If you don't believe that constitutes a reasonable belief of great bodily harm or death you are an idiot.

Even if your account of events was true (and it's not; it's a fiction that misrepresents the facts), it still would not possibly constitute a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. You'd have to prove lethal threats posed by Rosenbaum to make that case, and frankly, all you seem to have on those grounds are "if he takes Rittenhouse's gun, then he's armed and thus a threat". That's not an argument that's useful to you, because it means Rittenhouse was already the one instigating that threat and that makes everything Rosenbaum did justifiable self defense, and nothing Rittenhouse did can be justified accordingly.

Rosenbaum was neither law enforcement nor a good samaritan

Again, making shit up you cannot possibly demonstrate to be true.

nor was Kyle a suspect in any crime.

Charging documents state he was mishandling his weapon, putting bystanders at risk.
Charging documents state he took a low ready towards Rosenbaum, which is a lethal threat, and justifies Rosenbaum trying to disarm Rittenhouse.

Again, you're lying about the facts.

Rosenbaum was in the process of committing multiple felonies against Kyle when he was shot.

Where is "running towards someone" listed as a felony, under Wisconsin law? Or "throwing a water bottle in someone's general direction and without any kind of appreciable force"?

If you attempted to do what Rosenbaum did to Kyle when a police officer was responding to a shooting you can be damn sure your ass would be put in the ground, and criminals have been shot for doing exactly that.

Pointing to the ridiculous state of police cowardice and violence in the USA really isn't going to help your case.

Again, Rosenbaum was unarmed.

[Aurrora]

I'm not sure you entirely realise this is a damning indictment of American law enforcement and an admission of there being systemic issues, lol.

The world over you will be shot if you attempt to grab an officer's weapon when he's responding to a shot being fired, this is not unique to American law enforcement and your victimhood narrative exists only in your head.

[Endus]

The world over you will be shot if you attempt to grab an officer's weapon when he's responding to a shot being fired, this is not unique to American law enforcement and your victimhood narrative exists only in your head.

Literally false. Particularly as you keep pretending that Rittenhouse's actions leading up to this were innocent, and the charging documents make it clear that wasn't the case. You're editing the facts because they don't fit the conclusion you ideologically want to draw.

Police aren't allowed to shoot unarmed people who are running towards them in the rest of the world, dude. That's bananas crazy.

[Elegiac]

The world over you will be shot if you attempt to grab an officer's weapon when he's responding to a shot being fired, this is not unique to American law enforcement and your victimhood narrative exists only in your head.

Then you won't have any difficulty proving as such, hm?

No Jan, American police are uniquely violent and psychopathic by virtue of the culture in law enforcement selecting for violent psychopaths.

[Endus]

Then you won't have any difficulty proving as such, hm?

No Jan, American police are uniquely violent and psychopathic by virtue of the culture in law enforcement selecting for violent psychopaths.

Aurrora also wants to ignore that in this hypothetical, this police officer just fired at the unarmed citizen three times. That's when the grabbing-at-the-gun happens. After shooting at the unarmed man.

[Elegiac]

Aurrora also wants to ignore that in this hypothetical, this police officer just fired at the unarmed citizen three times. That's when the grabbing-at-the-gun happens. After shooting at the unarmed man.

Reminder that this satirization of American law enforcement dates back to 1995:



It has only gotten worse.

[Aurrora]

Bit in red is just untrue. You don't get to make shit up and pretend it's a fact.

Are you deaf? Do you not understand how sound or the human perception of it works? The shooter has admitted to firing the gun as a "warning shot". Human ears are not calibrated to determine that the weapon was aimed over his head, only that it was shot in his direction.

Again, completely false. Rittenhouse fired before Rosenbaum grabbed for the gun. Read the charging documents and stop making shit up or gullibly parroting other people's disinformation. https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Complaint.html

The order of events is that Rittenhouse turned, assumed a low ready position, fired three rounds, and then they describe Rosenbaum grabbing for the gun. Grabbing at the gun of the person trying to shoot you is perfectly reasonable.

Stop lying, Rosenbaum attempted to grab the gun, Kyle evaded the first attempt, then he tried to grab it again only then did Kyle fire, by the eyewitness's own words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmVXyJY5Eis&t=410s

Even if your account of events was true (and it's not; it's a fiction that misrepresents the facts), it still would not possibly constitute a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. You'd have to prove lethal threats posed by Rosenbaum to make that case, and frankly, all you seem to have on those grounds are "if he takes Rittenhouse's gun, then he's armed and thus a threat". That's not an argument that's useful to you, because it means Rittenhouse was already the one instigating that threat and that makes everything Rosenbaum did justifiable self defense, and nothing Rittenhouse did can be justified accordingly.


Again, making shit up you cannot possibly demonstrate to be true.

You would have us believe the the man who was recorded earlier attempting to provoke a fight, that had just committed arson, that took the premeditated steps to hide his identity by wearing his shirt as a mask was acting a good samaritan? A good samaritan in what way? Do you think his pedo-senses allowed him to smell that Kyle was underage so he wanted to take his firearm? Even if he did somehow know that Kyle may have been committing misdemeanor unlawful possession, does it make sense for a good samaritan to commit multiple felonies to prevent a misdemeanor?

Charging documents state he was mishandling his weapon, putting bystanders at risk.

The charging document does not say he was putting bystanders at risk, only that McGinnis believed he wasn't handling it very well. The results speak for themselves though, the only people that got bullets put into them were people in the process of attacking Kyle. He handled his weapon expertly.

Charging documents state he took a low ready towards Rosenbaum, which is a lethal threat, and justifies Rosenbaum trying to disarm Rittenhouse.

No it's fucking not, low ready means aimed at the ground, stop making up bullshit. Rosenbaum was already committing assault, he doesn't get to claim self defense

Where is "running towards someone" listed as a felony, under Wisconsin law? Or "throwing a water bottle in someone's general direction and without any kind of appreciable force"?

Felony assault, felony theft of a firearm, felony possession of a firearm if he succeeded in stealing Kyle's rifle since he was y'know, a felon. Just because you miss doesn't mean you're not committing assault, you don't get to say "JK just wait until my attack actually lands, then you're allowed to defend yourself."

- - - Updated - - -

Aurrora also wants to ignore that in this hypothetical, this police officer just fired at the unarmed citizen three times. That's when the grabbing-at-the-gun happens. After shooting at the unarmed man.

You're just proving that you know Kyle was in the right if you're going to blatantly lie about the events that happened.

[Bodakane]

You would have us believe the the man who was recorded earlier attempting to provoke a fight, that had just committed arson, that took the premeditated steps to hide his identity by wearing his shirt as a mask was acting a good samaritan? A good samaritan in what way? Do you think his pedo-senses allowed him to smell that Kyle was underage so he wanted to take his firearm? Even if he did somehow know that Kyle may have been committing misdemeanor unlawful possession, does it make sense for a good samaritan to commit multiple felonies to prevent a misdemeanor?

Of course the only good samaritan was the white nationalist incel, wearing latex gloves who showed up with a white nationalist militia (whose main focus, like all white nationalist militias, is causing violence at these protests) who just murdered someone and was fleeing the scene.

[unfilteredJW]

You're just proving that you know Kyle was in the right if you're going to blatantly lie about the events that happened.

Said the liar.