Don't care. It's not my problem, and I am not part of the problem they think they have, b/c like the vast majority of americans, i'm not a racist.
If you don't want to play basketball, then don't. We'll find someone else to play.
Striking does not work today. It's not 1960 anymore. There's plenty of people out there that will do your job if you don't want to. If they don't like what the owners of the NBA are doing, then go start your own league. Quit trying to make everyone conform to you. I'm sick and tired of that. Quit telling other people what to do with their business and their money. Start your own god damn business and run it however the hell you want, or go find a new job for an employer you like.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Townedrunkard

Member since Jan 2019

9152 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 3:23 pm to Bronc

quote:
Again with the staggeringly stupid, contradictory logic. If someone is out of jail they have done their time, how does the fact someone served time, or has yet to be convicted, make vigilante homicide justifiable? I would love to hear that argument from the freedom loving, obey authority, patriot like yourself. Furthermore, and once again, you are justifying murder by evoking criminal activity of the victim while completely ignoring the person committing the act you want to defend is actively ignoring the police and breaking the law

There is no vigilante homicide. Witness statements said the victims kept messing with the guy and then grabbed his gun. If someone tries to grab my gun, they getting shot.

You re the one being contradictory. According to yiu, these convicted felons that were victims have the same rights as police. Sorry but no they don’t, you are an idiot if you think that. They got shot because they make piss poor decisions in life. The same reason they went to jail in the first place. See the trend? They didn’t get shot just because they were convicts.

Police go through months of training. And those victims don’t get shot if they don’t attack first, which they all clearly did. Big difference between that and police trying to arrest someone with active violent felony warrants. The stats say a police officer is 30x more likely to be killed by a black male than a cop killing an unarmed black male. But you won’t hear that on CNN....

And the ‘vigilant patriot’ has every right to be out there and protest or anti protest as he so chooses. You said he shouldn’t have been there but then yap about everyone else’s right to protest any where they want. Typical liberal bs, can only do or say if you agree with their line of thinking.....

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 3:33 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bronc

Member since Sep 2018

12646 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 3:33 pm to TeddyPadillac

quote:
Don't care. It's not my problem, and I am not part of the problem they think they have, b/c like the vast majority of americans, i'm not a racist.
If you don't want to play basketball, then don't. We'll find someone else to play.
Striking does not work today. It's not 1960 anymore. There's plenty of people out there that will do your job if you don't want to. If they don't like what the owners of the NBA are doing, then go start your own league. Quit trying to make everyone conform to you. I'm sick and tired of that. Quit telling other people what to do with their business and their money. Start your own god damn business and run it however the hell you want, or go find a new job for an employer you like.

Striking just did work and who exactly is “we?”

And quit trying to get everyone to conform to you? You mean like trying to pillory people into shutting up about avenues of discussion you deem unworthy? You mean like venerating harsh punishment for employees that dare to collectively bargain or leverage themselves for causes you deem unworthy? You mean like screaming into the void about how you hope employers kick those uppity black people to the curve for not shutting up and dribbling so people that will do so can take their place?

Seems to me what you really are upset about are people, in sports and real life, not conforming to your views of the world....Which lets be honest, thats all this has ever been for most social conservatives, anger at not controlling the culture.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bronc

Member since Sep 2018

12646 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 3:38 pm to shel311

quote:
Did you see the first shooting video? He was 100% being attacked by the person who was shot. That really isn't disputable at this point.

What first shooting video?

the first video I have seen happens AFTER the first shooting right? A first shooting where circumstances are still murky.

However, it would seem the theory you’re postulating(and has been spread across conservative media) basically goes, if a gunman shot someone in the head, and you try to seize the gun from them for shooting someone in the head, the gunman is now justified in shooting you in the head.

Wonder how that lines up with the 2nd amendment philosophy of needing a gun because the bad guys have one? Seems like if you subscribe to the above theory, shooting first makes anyone shooting back an aggressor. A logic that’s conclusion justifies killing anyone trying to disarm you after shooting anyone, for any reason, in perpetuity.

And on that first victim:

Autopsy shows Rosenbaum had a gunshot wound to the right groin which fractured his pelvis, a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, a gunshot wound to his hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his thigh, and a graze gunshot wound to his forehead.

It sounds likely he was shot from the front and the back which means Rittenhouse likely shot him while he was already down. Seems like one reason you might want to disarm a guy you see shooting someone laying on their back dead.

The details on the first murder are murky, and no real evidence Jacob presented an imminent threat to human life requiring lethal force, but to my earlier point, its amazing how despite that we have these declarations of Kyle’s patriotism(despite breaking countless laws and fleeing police), while that same behavior is being used to justify shooting Jacob 7 times and branding him as deserving his outcome. With no commentary whatsoever of how the police treated Kyle vs protestors and Jacob. Which speaks to core issue evoking these protests. The stark contrast between a police force that Ignores, in fact, encourages a law breaking white kid breaking numerous laws and ordinances, later letting him leave the scene of a shooting, while rushing to use lethal force when a black man didn’t comply. How, when asked a day later, the police initially blame the protestors for Kyle’s illegal activity that put him in a situation, encouraged by them, where this violence occurred. Because you don’t even have to support Jacob to see how this situation exposes the underlying schism fueling protests.

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 3:51 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bronc

Member since Sep 2018

12646 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 3:50 pm to Townedrunkard

quote:
And the ‘vigilant patriot’ has every right to be out there and protest or anti protest as he so chooses. You said he shouldn’t have been there but then yap about everyone else’s right to protest any where they want. Typical liberal bs, can only do or say if you agree with their line of thinking.....

Every right to be there?

Remind me when the curfew was again?

Refresh me on Illinois gun laws for minors?

Go over for me the justifiable use of force laws in Wisconsin? With specific regards to self defense?

Help me remember what Illinois state law says about transporting a gun across the border as a minor?

Let me know what fleeing the state indicates of a suspect?

Now remind me why you are applying different standards? Way I see it all parties had no right to be there if we are taking the police’s orders at face value like you want to. Kyle should have been apprehended for numerous violations, yet, the police failed to do so, and not only that, encouraged, supported, and potentially facilitated his law breaking and allowed him to flee the state after murdering people. Yet the dead are guilty and Kyle is a martyr? Not seeing how you square that one pal.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by shel311

McKinney, Texas

Member since Aug 2004

111292 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 4:15 pm to Bronc

quote:
What first shooting video?

The video where he shot the guy after the guy threw that object at him. The video before the video of him falling down and shooting the skateboarder guy.

quote:
the first video I have seen happens AFTER the first shooting right?

I can't answer that if I don't know what the 1st video you saw is.

The first shooting, the bald guy with the red shirt who then has his shirt around his head throws something(some speculate the molotov cocktail but I don't think it's confirmed yet what it was) at Kyle while Kyle retreats. Kyle retreats further, running away. The bald guy with the shirt around his head continues to run at Kyle in an obvious attempt to attack him, and right before he gets to Kyle, Kyle stops turns around and shoots him in the head.

That's the video of the 1st shooting, did you see that one?

The 2nd video is where everyone is yelling that he shot someone so go get him. Well, you're not exactly a hero if you're trying to attack a guy who just shot someone in the head when that someone that was just shot was trying to attack the shooter. I don't know if they knew why the 1st shooting took place, but they wanted to subdue the shooter. If the 1st shooting was self defense, which from the info we have now seems clearly to be just that, then the 2nd/3rd shooting would have to be self defense as well.

But yes the kid does have to answer for having a gun illegally as I understand it. I don't know how the law works, but you gotta separate these things on some level. So yes, he is carrying that gun illegally. DOes that now mean he can't protect himself from being attacked? I don't know, but logic would say he should be able to protect himself legally, while having to pay consequences for having the gun illegally, but that's just my opinion, i don't know the law.

quote:
However, it would seem the theory you’re postulating(and has been spread across conservative media) basically goes, if a gunman shot someone in the head, and you try to seize the gun from them for shooting someone in the head, the gunman is now justified in shooting you in the head.

Again, it certainly appears you haven't see the 1st video. So I'll ask you point blank, aside from this scenario, if you shoot someone in self defense, does that mean other people are now justified to attack you? What kind of sense does that make?

quote:
Wonder how that lines up with the 2nd amendment philosophy of needing a gun because the bad guys have one?

Wait, who is the bad guy here? Based on the info we have, he was being attacked and retreating, so who is the bad guy? One of the guys he shot had a gun as well, so who is the bad guy? I'm not following.

quote:
Seems like if you subscribe to the above theory, shooting first makes anyone shooting back an aggressor. A logic that’s conclusion justifies killing anyone trying to disarm you after shooting anyone, for any reason, in perpetuity.

Again, now make it shooting first in self defense. Are you saying that doesn't change things?

quote:
The details on the first murder are murky, and no real evidence Jacob presented an imminent threat to human life requiring lethal force

The guy was running at him, threw something at him. Kyle retreated. The guy further came at Kyle clearly in a way to attack him, no one being rational would disagree. Kyle didn't shoot until the guy was at point blank range. Beating a dead horse here, but seems like what you keep saying is the 1st shooting is not the 1st shooting.

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 4:20 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by TeddyPadillac

Member since Dec 2010

26026 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 4:27 pm to Bronc

quote:
Striking just did work and who exactly is “we?”

What did it accomplish?
"we" as in whoever is in charge. It's a pronoun, not some hidden message.

quote:
And quit trying to get everyone to conform to you?You mean like trying to pillory people into shutting up about avenues of discussion you deem unworthy?

By asking them to play basketball? They can speak out and protest and do whatever else the hell they want. I'm not saying they can't, or they should'nt, just that they play basketball. If they don't want to for whatever their reason is (social injustice, want to join the army, want to hike the entirety of the Appalachian trail, want to be a traveling prostitute, etc) then don't, someone else will play in your spot. You holding your employer hostage b/c you want something that has nothing to do with your job is ridiculous.

quote:
You mean like venerating harsh punishment for employees that dare to collectively bargain or leverage themselves for causes you deem unworthy?

Yeah, but it doesn't matter what i deem it, i'm not in charge. If i was the boss, and my employees actions caused me to lose money, yeah, i'd punish them. As i said, you don't like it, go work somewhere else. Why is that so hard to do? Don't tell your boss how to run his business.

quote:
You mean like screaming into the void about how you hope employers kick those uppity black people to the curve for not shutting up and dribbling so people that will do so can take their place?

Thta's not why i said kick them to the curb. See, you keep thinking i'm trying to silence them. I"m not, and i've literally said i support their right to do so many times, but you keep failing to understand that. They are free to say whatever they want, and much to the surprise to the morons that think people are trying to silence them, most people with common sense that disagree with them can respect the fact that we live in a country where you are free to speak your mind. You're free to kneel during the anthem. You're free to fly the nazi flag. You're free to say you wish the president would die. Doesnt' mean i have to agree with what you say, and doesnt mean you can say things without repercussions, but i support your right to say it.

quote:
Seems to me what you really are upset about are people, in sports and real life, not conforming to your views of the world....Which lets be honest, thats all this has ever been for most social conservatives, anger at not controlling the culture.

You are literally describing yourself and the players. It doesnt matter what my views of the world are. I do'nt try to control other peoples culture. I control my own culture. I do so by living in a place that makes me happy, by visiting places that make me happy, by buying things that make me happy, by watching things that make me happy, by surrounding myself with people that make me happy. I'm in control of my life, and i'm not here to control others or make them change to meet my needs. If i don't like a doctor, i go see another one. I don't go protest him and try to change him. If i don't like how my kids school goes about their education, then i'll go find one that i like. If i don't like the way i'm treated at popeyes, then i'll go to chik-fil-a to get my chicken. I have no problem with how other people want to approach their life, or job, or anything. You want to scream from the mountaintop about racism all the time on tv, go for it. It's my choice if i don't want to watch your program. Don't get mad at me for not watching it. YOu do you and enjoy life. I'll do me and enjoy life as well. It's a big country with plenty of happiness to be had by all people. go find it and enjoy what you like, and don't do the things you don't like. Really not a hard concept, and how the vast majority of america feels. It's why the term silent majority has been so popular lately. the silent majority don't try to conform other people, they just go about their lives doing the things that make them comfortable and enjoy life in the greatest country in the world.
There are radical people on the left and the right, and they are both idiots, and live in misery for some stupid reason.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bronc

Member since Sep 2018

12646 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 4:43 pm to shel311

Wisconsin law states clearly that unless your life is in objectively and demonstrably imminent mortal danger, do you have the right to fire and kill someone in self defense. This is not stand your ground territory. This is not apply your moral code to the situation territory.

Reports are also that he confronted and potentially aimed that weapon at people, and in that respect, anyone on the other end of that can immediately claim imminent mortal danger. So this cuts both ways here. Which is why this video you claim, as you describe it, doesn’t really prove what you seem to indicate it does. Because if at any point Kyle initiated threatening remarks or aimed that weapon, which some accounts indicate, he would be the instigator posing an imminent threat(as castle doctrine does not apply outside of your own home in Wisconsin, as I understand it, and even then it’s limited in scope). Which is also why I suspect people are bending over backwards to claim a Molotov was thrown, despite no real definitive evidence of such. Evidence instead stating it was a plastic bag on fire. Because if it is just a bag, that missed, that is going to be hard to justify responding with lethal force. Especially if you instigated. Let alone when you had no legal right to be there anyways, let alone with a weapon you illegally possessed and transported.

But to circle back to the primary failure here, a systemically broken police department. One that not only ignored ordinances Kyle was subject to, but encouraged his illegal activity, including reports police may have facilitated confrontations between protestors and militia groups, after thanking them for their illegal activity. Then letting him flee the state after people fingered him as a shooter and were aware of a shooting incident.

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 4:51 pm

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Townedrunkard

Member since Jan 2019

9152 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 5:53 pm to Bronc

quote:
Every right to be there? Remind me when the curfew was again? Refresh me on Illinois gun laws for minors?

So what you are saying is if the protesters/looters had obeyed the law, they would have been home and not have been shot. Fair point. Or only BLM allowed to protest past curfew? Which is it?

And Wisconsin law actually allows kids age 16-17 to carry rifles not handguns. The offense Is a misdemeanor, ( unlike the violent felony charges that belonged to mr Blake) As far as crossing state lines, did you ride with him? Did he bring the gun over state lines or did an adult companion. You must have been with him to be so sure.

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 6:01 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Townedrunkard

Member since Jan 2019

9152 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 5:59 pm to Bronc

quote:
Which is also why I suspect people are bending over backwards to claim a Molotov was thrown, despite no real definitive evidence of such. Evidence instead stating it was a plastic bag on fire.

I’m sure it was just a plastic bag or hey how about we call it, I don’t know a flaming Dr Pepper in a glass bottle. Nothing to fear. I’m sure the mob was just trying to give him a hard earned alcohol drink for his hard work from scrubbing their grafetti off the walls earlier. The mob meant no harm. I’m sure that’s how CNN will portray it any way.

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 6:01 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Townedrunkard

Member since Jan 2019

9152 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 6:05 pm to Bronc

quote:
after thanking them for their illegal activity.

And this must be a fricking joke? What is illegal about protecting a business with open carry? Are you so brainwashed that you now believe it’s legal to break into stores and loot whatever during any protest. There is only one side that has been doing illegal activity during all this shite and it’s been BLM and their protests....

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by shel311

McKinney, Texas

Member since Aug 2004

111292 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 6:46 pm to Bronc

quote:
Wisconsin law states clearly that unless your life is in objectively and demonstrably imminent mortal danger, do you have the right to fire and kill someone in self defense. This is not stand your ground territory. This is not apply your moral code to the situation territory

Stand your ground involves no duty to retreat. He clearly retreated until he couldn't any more in video #1. I'll put it this way, you may not agree, but I don't think you can say it's flat wrong for one to think his life 2a in danger there.

quote:
Reports are also that he confronted and potentially aimed that weapon at people, and in that respect, anyone on the other end of that can immediately claim imminent mortal danger

I haven't seen those reports. I don't think you can just automatically say that makes it ok for them to attack him, it would depend on why he aimed the weapon.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by shel311

McKinney, Texas

Member since Aug 2004

111292 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 6:46 pm to Townedrunkard

quote:
And this must be a fricking joke? What is illegal about protecting a business with open carry?

Being 17

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Townedrunkard

Member since Jan 2019

9152 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 7:10 pm to shel311

quote:
Being 17

I think he meant the entire ‘militia’ as he called them. You can carry a rifle at 17 if you are hunting, and the way the law is written, it is sketchy. Who’s to say he wasn’t hunting rats?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Turbeauxdog

Member since Aug 2004

23386 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 8:20 pm to Bronc

quote:
Every right to be there?

Remind me when the curfew was again?

Refresh me on Illinois gun laws for minors?

Go over for me the justifiable use of force laws in Wisconsin? With specific regards to self defense?

Help me remember what Illinois state law says about transporting a gun across the border as a minor?

Let me know what fleeing the state indicates of a suspect?

Now remind me why you are applying different standards? Way I see it all parties had no right to be there if we are taking the police’s orders at face value like you want to. Kyle should have been apprehended for numerous violations, yet, the police failed to do so, and not only that, encouraged, supported, and potentially facilitated his law breaking and allowed him to flee the state after murdering people. Yet the dead are guilty and Kyle is a martyr? Not seeing how you square that one pal.

I can’t even keep score anymore

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Epic Cajun

Lafayette, LA

Member since Feb 2013

32955 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 8:24 pm to Turbeauxdog

This guy has to be on the spectrum, or is just a troll with too much time on his hands

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bronc

Member since Sep 2018

12646 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 9:40 pm to Townedrunkard

quote:
And Wisconsin law actually allows kids age 16-17 to carry rifles not handguns

That is not true, Wisconsin law states that anyone under 18, not engaging in hunting, are not allowed to carry any firearm and the penalty is classified as a class A misdemeanor.

So even if you want to wash out both sides disobeying curfew ordinances(of which that doesnt account for the police only enforcing that against protestors), Kyle never should have been in that situation and the police had every opportunity to prevent it by simply applying the same level of suspicion to the white person as they did to protestors and Jacob.

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 9:55 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bronc

Member since Sep 2018

12646 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 9:50 pm to shel311

quote:
Stand your ground involves no duty to retreat. He clearly retreated until he couldn't any more in video #1. I'll put it this way, you may not agree, but I don't think you can say it's flat wrong for one to think his life 2a in danger there.

Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. In Wisconsin, as I understand it, you must be able to demonstrate either the castle doctrine( someone engaging in threatening activity on your personal property, which has a number of caveats), or, your life was in imminent mortal danger and you are acting in pure self defense.

If the multiple reports of Kyle initiating aggressive behavior toward vandals are accurate(which are outlined in his charges as well), specifically, if he approached and confronted with threats and gun in hand, Which he had no legal right to brandish, possibly raised at one point(recklessly endangering safety), toward people at the gas station, which no video I am aware of corroborates or debunks, but if accurate, that makes it very difficult to claim he was the one responding in self defense. If he threatened someone with a loaded weapon it would be the person being threatened, if anything, that had the justification to act in retaliation.

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 9:51 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bronc

Member since Sep 2018

12646 posts

Posted on 8/28/20 at 9:54 pm to Townedrunkard

quote:
And this must be a fricking joke? What is illegal about protecting a business with open carry? Are you so brainwashed that you now believe it’s legal to break into stores and loot whatever during any protest. There is only one side that has been doing illegal activity during all this shite and it’s been BLM and their protests....

Carrying a weapon for non hunting purposes, under age, after curfew, non-deputized, potentially transported in illegally across state lines, and reportedly initiating aggressive behavior toward individuals.

quote:
I’m sure it was just a plastic bag or hey how about we call it, I don’t know a flaming Dr Pepper in a glass bottle. Nothing to fear. I’m sure the mob was just trying to give him a hard earned alcohol drink for his hard work from scrubbing their grafetti off the walls earlier. The mob meant no harm. I’m sure that’s how CNN will portray it any way.

CNN? Try the official police report. Which described it as a plastic bag that missed the defendant(Kyle)

This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 10:05 pm

« Prev Page Next Page »