Summer of 2020---The Civil Unrest Thread--Read OP Before Posting (in memory of George Floyd)

[Mr. Sinister]

All lives should matter. Clearly not all do.

[Gibbit]

9 hours ago, Jumbo said:

i made a post yesterday about being conscious of the reality that the shooting of blake and the actions of the 17 yo shooter will continue play out facts/spin-wise over time, and the inevitable course of the evidence and analysis taking time to evolve and get all the loose stuff tight

 

that's not becuase i think there's that much to doubt about the basic culpability of each party and how the individual transgressions are not all 'equal' or legally justified with each actor involved in both matters, even at this time

 

it's becuase the game of arguing your pov using specific details that may soon get muddied, or shown to be misleading or erroneous, undermines the position taken even if it's still fundamentally valid overall and who wants even a marginally weakened stance?  

 

 

to that point, this morning smerconish interviewed a times journalist from a team of reporters focused solely on assimilating all the existing video and audio evidence on the 17 yo's actions, specifically and all those who interacted with him during his time there, cops and civilians (very good stuff)

 

and they show a lot that supports what most of us think from what we've seen already, as the 17 yo basically being a 'bad guy', but there is enough other stuff to keep this from being some glaringly obvious slam dunk in court or even in the broad media arena...there are a number of things that will need to be sorted in seeking all the facts and many details will get exaggerated or  misrepresented by humans in highly emotional and very serious opposition with each other

 

some work will have to be done to prosecute the case on the 17 yo, given a highly skilled attorney already has enough to make a play to the camera and public opinion as much as to a judge.... having some kind of grounds for a public campaign to make the guy a 'hero' or poster-boy (hitler youth?) or at least a sympathetic and 'innocent' person, is a big goal for the right wing here

 

at this point i still see the 17 yo as fully culpable myself, but you will see all these details argued over and amplified...i plan to judge them all on merit, naturally, tho i acknowledge my bottom line on 'things that are the most wrong in our society when it comes to racism' remains as it has been...logically/rationally and emotionally

 

at least its white on white violence. can i get an amen

[killerbee99]

27 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

at least its white on white violence. can i get an amen

No that still is horrible, even if it's white on white.... 2 people got killed

[skinsmarydu]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

Also, it should be illegal for a minor to carry a weapon like that.

It is illegal. His mom drove both him and his mechanical dick pump there. Charge that b-word too. 

[Gibbit]

26 minutes ago, killerbee99 said:

No that still is horrible, even if it's white on white.... 2 people got killed

all of them doing stupid **** looking for trouble

[Jumbo]

1 hour ago, Gibbit said:

at least its white on white violence. can i get an amen

 

 i'm afraid you get a rule 11 violation

 

if i don't tk will take away my mod lounge bathroom privileges

 

 

16 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

all of them doing stupid **** looking for trouble

 

  takes one to know one!

[China]

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Us antifa supersoldiers got them shook. 

[Destino]

2 hours ago, visionary said:

He was also engaged in multiple crimes (with the help of the police, who need to be charged for their involvement), so I guess by the same logic it's ok if someone killed him and the police who encouraged and aided his behavior?

If teenage vigilante was on video chasing down one of the rioters, and he ended up dead, I doubt many here would be viewing him as a victim.

[pigskinned]

Kyle is possibly guilty of carrying a firearm under age 18 (if he had a safety class this apparently doesn't apply).  He is also guilty of a curfew violation, along with everybody else there.

 

However, he also has a basic right to self defense, and the video and witness accounts clearly establish that each of the three people he shot posed a risk to him of death or serious bodily injury:

 

1. The first casualty can be seen on video attempting to start an altercation with other members of the armed group (shoot ME !@*!), then can be seen on video chasing Kyle after Kyle attempted to put out a he and his group started, with a fire extinguisher.  He is pursing Kyle and that makes him the aggressor, not Kyle. He throws something that appears to be on fire at Kyle.  He catches up to Kyle and attempts to grab his rifle (which is further illegal as he is a convicted felon and sex offender).  The witness account states that they seperated and as the casualty grabbed Kyle's weapon a second time, he was shot and killed.  Kyle himself can be seen on video trying to render aid and calling 911 to report the shooting and request medical.  Then the mob starts yelling "get him" and chasing him down the street.

2.  He runs away and is hit in the head by a pursuer (aggressor) and does nothing.  Not until he falls down does he take another shot.  He is kicked in the head by one guy.  The 2nd casualty attacks him with a skateboard, attempts to struggle for the rifle and is dispatched. 

3. The 3rd casualty was standing over him with a firearm when shot.

 

These facts will provide an open and shut case of self defense.  

[Springfield]

I thought he called a friend to say “I shot someone”, not the police. The people were chasing him because he shot someone and was fleeing the scene. They were obviously trying to disarm a gunman.

 

Or are we supposed to just let active shooters walk?

[visionary]

11 minutes ago, pigskinned said:

1. The first casualty can be seen on video attempting to start an altercation with other members of the armed group (shoot ME !@*!), then can be seen on video chasing Kyle after Kyle attempted to put out a he and his group started, with a fire extinguisher.  He is pursing Kyle and that makes him the aggressor, not Kyle. He throws something that appears to be on fire at Kyle.  He catches up to Kyle and attempts to grab his rifle (which is further illegal as he is a convicted felon and sex offender).  The witness account states that they seperated and as the casualty grabbed Kyle's weapon a second time, he was shot and killed.  Kyle himself can be seen on video trying to render aid and calling 911 to report the shooting and request medical.  Then the mob starts yelling "get him" and chasing him down the street.

2.  He runs away and is hit in the head by a pursuer (aggressor) and does nothing.  Not until he falls down does he take another shot.  He is kicked in the head by one guy.  The 2nd casualty attacks him with a skateboard, attempts to struggle for the rifle and is dispatched. 

3. The 3rd casualty was standing over him with a firearm when shot.

At least some of this is misinformation at best.  

[bearrock]

On 8/29/2020 at 6:07 PM, Destino said:

There’s definitely a case to be made for self defense, assuming that his having an illegal gun doesn’t preclude him from arguing self defense entirely.  No one has said that it does.  
 

The first thing is that every shooting was caught on camera and in all instances Kyle is running from his attackers prior to shooting anyone.  It’s tough to paint him as a deranged mass shooter out for blood when this is the case.  I don’t think this is a minor detail that can easily be dismissed.

 

What we have now is that he's been charged with first degree murder where the prosecution said the charges are based on review of videos, Rittenhouse's statements, and witnesses.  It's not like the prosecution didn't see the videos.  But probably fair to say that it's too early to draw a conclusion either way.

 

Quote

Also, the people he shot appear to be rioters, which essentially means criminals in the act of committing crimes.  They have no right to do this unbothered.  
 

 

This has no bearing on the case.  Even if Wisconsin allows use of deadly force in defense of property, I've seen no allegations that Rittenhouse killed in defense of his property.  Stopping rioters is the job for the police, not some wannabe vigilante.  He can use deadly force for self defense if the situation warranted it.  Killing rioters because they are criminals who have no right to riot unbothered is still murder.

 

Quote

What it comes down to IMO is proving there was, or was not, imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.  Especially in that first shooting.  If that first shooting is self defense, the other two are easily argued the same.  If the first is not, than none of them are.  This comes down to how talented the prosecutors and defense attorneys are, and the mindset of the jury.  
 

 

This is not true.  The two shootings can have different outcomes.  That depends on the evidence of what led up to each of the shootings.

 

Quote

The video evidence I’ve seen so far helps the defense in this case, but prosecutors might dig up something that shows he wanted to shoot people that night.  Something we haven’t seen yet that establishes a motive.  We also don’t see what set off the first incident, there may be witnesses that can speak to that.

 

Prosecution has claimed that they reviewed the available evidence, including the videos, the alleged's statement, and eyewitness statements.  Not sure they have to dig up something new at this point.  Unless the prosecution jumped the gun on shaky evidence, the defense would have to dig up something to poke holes in the state's case.

 

Also, motive is not an element of the crime.

 

On 8/29/2020 at 9:15 PM, Destino said:

If teenage vigilante was on video chasing down one of the rioters, and he ended up dead, I doubt many here would be viewing him as a victim.

 

That would depend on who instigated it.  If a rioter instigated the deadly encounter by chasing down a wannabe vigilante and giving justification for the use of deadly force, the rioter wouldn't be a victim either.  If that's what happened, Rittenhouse is not a murderer.  But at least the prosecution so far seems to think he is after reviewing the evidence.  We'll have to see how this plays out in the legal system to reach an educated conclusion.

[Destino]

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

From what I gather reading and watching (Wapo, NY Times, Buzzfeed) the first incident happened without being blatantly captured. Granted I haven’t searched every single video out because I’m frankly tired of watching people die.

 

So it would seem to me that this kid shot someone, and nobody really knows why. Could have been self defense, could have been aggression, could have been him protecting a business.

The first incident was caught on tape, and the video start with the shooter running away.  The first victim is chasing him.  This much is clear, then the universe conspires to muddy the waters.  On the left of the video shot we can see (and hear) a gun go off.  This happens right as the first victim closes in on the shooter, who turns and fires at him.  
 

It’s difficult for me to see that and think that this is definitely defense or not.  I can see clear arguments for both.  

 

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

After that, he’s now a person who’s shot and possibly killed a person. Why wouldn’t they (the rioters) chase him down and apprehend him? The second and third shootings shouldn’t be self defense in my book. What are we taught in active shooter scenarios? Run, hide, fight. Well they fought. The people chasing that boy, who just killed a man were acting in their own self defense.

 

Also, it should be illegal for a minor to carry a weapon like that.

 

 

I imagine it will be hard to argue both, that vigilante guy is guilty of murder because he took it upon himself to stop crimes in progress and by doing so instigated the situation... and that he’s guilty of murder for shooting people that were totally innocent because they were just trying to stop a crime. 
 

I agree with you however, that the 2nd death and 3rd gunshot victim probably thought they were stopping a criminal.  A true tragedy.  They didn’t look like rioters seeking revenge.  

 

 

[Llevron]

18 minutes ago, pigskinned said:

Kyle is possibly guilty of carrying a firearm under age 18 (if he had a safety class this apparently doesn't apply).  He is also guilty of a curfew violation, along with everybody else there.

 

However, he also has a basic right to self defense, and the video and witness accounts clearly establish that each of the three people he shot posed a risk to him of death or serious bodily injury:

How come we have never seen you in these conversations before? You seem really into this stuff I’m surprised this is the first time you have been here. 

[pigskinned]

Just now, visionary said:

At least some of this is misinformation at best.  

 

 What facts are you relying on in making that statement?  I am relying on the video that everybody can watch, and is not disputable.  And the witness statements of Riche McGinness, and I have not seen any contradicting statements from actual eyewitness to shooting of casualty 1.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Springfield]

14 minutes ago, pigskinned said:

 

 What facts are you relying on in making that statement?  I am relying on the video that everybody can watch, and is not disputable.  And the witness statements of Riche McGinness, and I have not seen any contradicting statements from actual eyewitness to shooting of casualty 1.

Well for one, I don’t think he called the police. I think the called a friend of his. Then he fled the scene of a crime.

[Yohan]

I’m a cyclist and my normal Saturday route is to hit the Racine Lakefront, head south through the Kenosha Lakefront and continue into Illinois and back. The seeing of the burned out buildings and cars in person was unbelievable, as I tried to picture what it looked like before, the burnt smell was strong. Many of the boarded up places are allowing people to draw, paint, graffiti positive pictures/sayings. I was going to take some pictures as people were doing this, but then I felt funny for doing so, and I didn’t. On my way back, I always stop at a mom n pop store to refill waters and get some sugar (Snickers or Twinkees), the store was open, but boarded and happy that I still came through. I was also informed at this time that Trump is planning a visit to Kenosha on Tuesday...so what has been 2 nights of peaceful protest, may change...the last thing needed here is his fuel to the fire.

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

39 minutes ago, Destino said:

If teenage vigilante was on video chasing down one of the rioters, and he ended up dead, I doubt many here would be viewing him as a victim.

Just adding that it's probably because many here are realistic and know that you get what you give. 

[China]

Seattle-based food truck volunteers arrested in Kenosha, Wisconsin

 

A group of Seattle food truck volunteers were arrested by law enforcement in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Wednesday.

 

Riot Kitchen has been providing food to Seattle protesters for months now, after previously having a station set up at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP).

 

Staffed by a group of volunteers, they had planned to drive their truck across the country to provide free food for marchers on Friday in Washington, D.C. After hearing about the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, they decided to make a stop in Wisconsin.

 

Kenosha police say they received an anonymous tip alerting them to “several suspicious vehicles with out of state plates meeting in a remote lot.” Authorities tailed the vehicles to a gas station, where the volunteers were observed filling “multiple fuel cans,” which they later claimed were for generators used as part of their meal service.

 

A video posted to Twitter shows police — aided by U.S. Marshals — rushing out of unmarked black SUVs to surround a silver minivan, drawing their guns and yelling at volunteers in the Riot Kitchen van to “get the [expletive] out.” An officer can then be seen breaking the van’s passenger-side window, before reaching inside to unlock and open the door. From there, the volunteers exited the vehicle and were arrested.

 

Police claim that occupants of the minivan attempted to drive away from the scene, before being stopped by their “forced entry” into the vehicle.

 

A written statement from the Kenosha Police Department says they suspected “the occupants of these vehicles were preparing for criminal activity related to the civil unrest [in Kenosha].”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Springfield]

I found this informative, tracing the shooter through video...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/tracing-kyle-rittenhouses-actions-the-night-of-the-shootings-in-kenosha-wis/2020/08/28/6c24b27c-2c5c-4dde-88f5-4d829bb3e992_video.html

[visionary]

26 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Well for one, I don’t think he called the police. I think the called a friend of his. Then he fled the scene of a crime.

From the initial reports at least, he told the police he had just shot two people as they let him through their lines and helped him flee the scene.  

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

I thought he called a friend to say “I shot someone”, not the police. The people were chasing him because he shot someone and was fleeing the scene. They were obviously trying to disarm a gunman.

 

Or are we supposed to just let active shooters walk?

they were making a citizens arrest and attempting to apprehend a killer. Why did he resist arrest? Should have just gone peacefully and listened to them. 
 

oh wait, we can fight back with guns now? Hmm

20 minutes ago, visionary said:

From the initial reports at least, he told the police he had just shot two people as they let him through their lines and helped him flee the scene.  

i think he’s referring to the after he shot the first person 

[Jumbo]

55 minutes ago, pigskinned said:

 

 What facts are you relying on in making that statement?  I am relying on the video that everybody can watch, and is not disputable.  And the witness statements of Riche McGinness, and I have not seen any contradicting statements from actual eyewitness to shooting of casualty 1.

 

 

when you first posted, i read it, smh, then looked at your profile page to see when you joined and see your posting history because reasons  

 

after being reminded of your other recent gems on other topics, i read your follow-up posts here and i was gonna do a number on your manner of entry and your content...but before posting it i thought i'd go check on my other suspicion and sure enough...once you dupe accts draw my attention i always see ya  

 

what i like about this one is he had prev temp bans under one acct (that one also not his first), then got perma banned under it, came back using a new screen name that was the rule violation he was banned for, got banned again, and now his journey continues...this is the kind of brain that makes those kind of posts