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

[Elegiac]

This wasn’t a counter-protest

You can just say you don't know what words mean, sweetheart.

I mean you've lied about every other aspect of the case thus far, so why stop there. Lol.

Unless you are contending that the entire point of a BLM protest is to terrorize communities with arson and vandalism.

The right wing shitstains' belief that their presence was necessary to stop arson and vandalism because BLM is what made it a counter-protest.

Again; one has to question exactly what your investment in this case actually is.

[uuuhname]

This wasn’t a counter-protest, they were just defending property from arson and damage. Unless you are contending that the entire point of a BLM protest is to terrorize communities with arson and vandalism.

property that wasn't even there's, and no one asked them to defend it. hence why no reasonable person should believe they were there out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Edge-]

they were just defending property

Reminder: There is no evidence showing that they were asked to defend said property. They had no reason to be there.

[Elegiac]

property that wasn't even there's, and no one asked them to defend it. hence why no reasonable person should believe they were there out of the goodness of their hearts.

And note that they're mysteriously absent whenever the protest is not one aligned with social justice. See: anti-vaxx or pro-life rallies.

It's almost as if they knew an armed response would escalate the situation to help further their narrative. Shocker.

[Xyonai]

I'm gonna have a hot fucking take here, but having taken the time to follow the court proceedings It's a bit more clear to me that Rittenhouse is gonna get off with a successful self defense case. Bumbling from the Prosecution or Perceived biases of the judge aside, I feel like the case being presented more than meets the threshold of 'reasonable doubt' to keep the kid from getting tagged with Murder Charges.

Do I think he was justified traveling to another city, purchase and illegal weapon, and patrol around like he was a Cop? Fucking hell no. Kid's no hero, he's just some dumbass who thought playing as a hero would be cool without the actual reality of such a situation driving itself home 'till he popped off onto people who thought he was an active shooter. In a perfect world I'd say this could be a wake-up call for the kid to get his act together and clean up, do something better with himself because - as a seventeen year old - he has a long fuckin' life ahead of him that he could still turn around and do something with.

But what's more likely is that he's going to be hailed as some 'Hero' by Right Wing fucknuts who'll see a 'not guilty' verdict the exact same as saying His actions were 100% correct from start to finish so it's okay to do the exact same shit. Which makes me glad last year's protests have simmered down, because I do not want more Kyle wanna-be's 'patrolling' the streets, looking to pick fights so they can shoot people in 'self defense'.

[uuuhname]

And note that they're mysteriously absent whenever the protest is not one aligned with social justice. See: anti-vaxx or pro-life rallies.

hell if we have this latest anti vax protest in SF to go off of it's full of violent psychos that will go out of their way to inflict harm on other people.

[Endus]

And note that they're mysteriously absent whenever the protest is not one aligned with social justice. See: anti-vaxx or pro-life rallies.

And that there was no reason to presume a BLM protest would be violent, in the first place.

And that they clearly weren't making much of any kind of stand to "protect" anything, and certainly not with whatever the fuck Rittenhouse was up to.

And that going heavily armed like this was in no way necessary for this.

[Coniferous]

A reasonable person would not have travelled to participate in a right wing armed counter-protest. End of story.

To me this is probably the most valid argument against the reasonable person standard. No one reasonable should have been in Kenosha that night… the moment crazies start burning down car lots, it’s time for reasonable people to get the hell out.

But the sticking point for me is that the law allowed him to be there. People will do dumb things in the absence of laws that make sense, and I’m not sure it makes sense to hold them responsible for the inevitable consequences - especially not first degree murder with life in prison.

I think a similar dynamic is at play with Henry Ruggs - the charges are like 40 years, but I think something like 10 makes more sense. I have no issue with a short jail term for Rittenhouse either. I think life in prison would be a stupid way for a society to handle this.

[Elegiac]

But the sticking point for me is that the law allowed him to be there

The way that you can't seem to internalize that this is evidence of systemic bias.

Fucking lol.

Also:

the moment crazies start burning down car lots

Your bias is showing.

[Coniferous]

Ned and Jimbo are extremely obvious parodies of 2A nuts. Both things can be true simultaneously.

So South Park, in joking that people were justifying shooting animals by pretending that the animal was charging them, was also somehow subtly arguing that it’s not ok to shoot an animal that is charging? I want some of what you’re smoking.

[Elegiac]

So South Park, in joking that people were justifying shooting animals by pretending that the animal was charging them, was also somehow subtly arguing that it’s not ok to shoot an animal that is charging?

Nooo.... It means that joking that 2A nuts will justify shooting harmless animals by pretending there's a threat to their life is also a commentary on 2A shooting harmless people by pretending there's a threat to their life. You know, like Rittenhouse.

Like I said: both things can be true simultaneously. It's not my fault that right wingers can only seem to grasp hyper-literal readings of a given text. Rofl.

[Aurrora]

property that wasn't even there's, and no one asked them to defend it. hence why no reasonable person should believe they were there out of the goodness of their hearts.

The owners asked them to defend it.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminder: There is no evidence showing that they were asked to defend said property. They had no reason to be there.

There is, stop lying.

- - - Updated - - -

And that there was no reason to presume a BLM protest would be violent, in the first place.

And that they clearly weren't making much of any kind of stand to "protect" anything, and certainly not with whatever the fuck Rittenhouse was up to.

And that going heavily armed like this was in no way necessary for this.

Are you unaware of the events of the previous nights, or are you just playing dumb?

[Coniferous]

The way that you can't seem to internalize that this is evidence of systemic bias.

Fucking lol.

Also:



Your bias is showing.

Burning down a car lot IS crazy… right? Like, what? Are you arguing that those were rational people?

And please explain why it’s systemic bias - people on both sides of the riot were allowed to have guns. One of them fired a warning shot, and the other pointed it at Rittenhouse. They weren’t saying “no you’re black, you can’t have a gun.” I feel like you really have to go through some serious logical contortions to get to systemic bias from there, and I’m curious to see you try.

[Elegiac]

The owners asked them to defend it.

According to a bunch of right wing nuts trying to justify their presence, not the owners themselves.

[Coniferous]

Nooo.... It means that joking that 2A nuts will justify shooting harmless animals by pretending there's a threat to their life is also a commentary on 2A shooting harmless people by pretending there's a threat to their life. You know, like Rittenhouse.

Like I said: both things can be true simultaneously. It's not my fault that right wingers can only seem to grasp hyper-literal readings of a given text. Rofl.

What does 2a mean? And how is you calling them “nuts” not an issue but me calling the people who burned down a car lot “crazy” somehow systemic bias? Double standard much - maybe you have some bias?

[Micfeind]

This wasn’t a counter-protest, they were just defending property from arson and damage..

As has been stated and proven in the trial.
They were not asked to defend any property, they were a law onto themselves and I don't think vigilantism is legal so if you want to get into semantics about what they were doing there how about this? They were unlawfully on property while carrying deadly weapons and decided that they were above the law, travelled to a place they were not from to offer armed support to someone who never asked for it and proceeded to instil tension in the air while walking around like they were at war with their guns. They acted like terrorists in my eyes and I don't care what you say back in defence of it because you a clearly set in your ways that someone can march into a city strapped for war and say good on them they are good people.

- - - Updated - - -

What does 2a mean?

second amendment

[uuuhname]

The owners asked them to defend it.

say's who.

[Aurrora]

According to a bunch of right wing nuts trying to justify their presence, not the owners themselves.

The owners who had every reason to lie after the fact, were visibly uncomfortable and evasive during questioning and took pictures with the people they supposedly did not want on their property. Sure dude.

- - - Updated - - -

say's who.

JoAnn Fiedler, Dominick Black, Kyle Rittenhouse, and Nick Smith.

[uuuhname]

"I say these store owner's made a call for armed Randoms to travel from all over to defend my property."

"evidence of this"

"weeeell they had every reason to lie and say they didn't in fact do that, my sources on this are the people who say they got the call, it's air tight."

[Aurrora]

As has been stated and proven in the trial.
They were not asked to defend any property, they were a law onto themselves and I don't think vigilantism is legal so if you want to get into semantics about what they were doing there how about this? They were unlawfully on property while carrying deadly weapons and decided that they were above the law, travelled to a place they were not from to offer armed support to someone who never asked for it and proceeded to instil tension in the air while walking around like they were at war with their guns. They acted like terrorists in my eyes and I don't care what you say back in defence of it because you a clearly set in your ways that someone can march into a city strapped for war and say good on them they are good people.

Stop lying, the witness testimony and corroborating evidence shows they were there with the owner's permission.