His questions are central to assessing the answers to your questions you moron.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If you want to play this game, answer my questions first.
His questions are central to assessing the answers to your questions you moron.If you want to play this game, answer my questions first.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They really aren't through. If you assume a 17 year old firing in self defense is murder because he shouldn't of had a gun but believe that an 18 year old firing in self defense is 100% acceptable and justified in the same situation I truly question both your understanding of how a jury trial works and/or the ethics of pursuing the case. Central to everything is, was Kyle justified in shooting someone in self defense when he was attacked? Do you have the right to shoot someone attacking you? The answer to both questions is yes.
People who kill other people while breaking the law shouldn't be tried for murder as long as that murder was done to defend their continued actions of breaking the law, regardless of the position they willingly put themselves in?
You can't possibly be this stupid. Scratch that, we know you are, but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-29-2020 at 03:33 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
He was running from people who were trying to apprehend him for shooting someone. That is the crime he committed that was immediately relevant to this situation. Of course, the illegal possession, transportation and unsupervised use of a gun he doesn't own should be prosecuted as well. We shouldn't let criminals like him off the hook—the guy's the kind of person who can become an incel/groyper terrorist if he isn't checked early.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Did Rittenhouse commit felonies before or after the crowd tried to disarm and apprehend him?
Are you in favour of the public disarming and apprehending felons?
All right obviously I have a bit of a credibility problem with y'all but if you really care about the facts and truth this is a pretty damn solid video of the events, including footage and analysis from a legal perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE
Thanks to his ridiculous Freedom Crocs, the Kenocha murderer has been identified jumping a girl due to an argument he wasn't even involved in. Guy seems like a real stable type of person, totally not like someone who would cross state lines to illegally hunt people with an assault weapon.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It will only endear him further to the "look what you made me do" crowd that makes up 80% of the Republican voter base. They will say he was being tormented by cruel brown Democrat kids, and that he attacked in order to defend himself preemptively from the violence to which they were no doubt going to subject him. They'll think, "That bitch had it coming."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Gee, what a surprise -- Lewk defending vigilantism and selective "Law & Order".
It's more disturbing to see Fox hosts like Tucker Carlson and even Trump himselfspew the same hypocritical nonsense.
They claim to be "helping" the police protect property, and want to show support or solidarity for the police, or some shit like that -- after a cop shot an unarmed black man in the back 7 times?! Those excuses for vigilante/militia groups only makes sense in White Nationalist, authoritarian, or fascist circles.
Facebook and Fox are complicit in fomenting these *right-wing domestic terrorists groups*.
I told you guys back in the CC days Rupert Merdoch is evil. Facebook wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for his malfeasance at MySpace.Facebook and Fox are complicit in fomenting these *right-wing domestic terrorists groups*.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
GGT was Kyle attacked first before he shot someone?Gee, what a surprise -- Lewk defending vigilantism and selective "Law & Order".
It's more disturbing to see Fox hosts like Tucker Carlson and even Trump himself
They claim to be "helping" the police protect property, and want to show support or solidarity for the police, or some shit like that -- after a cop shot an unarmed black man in the back 7 times?! Those excuses for vigilante/militia groups only makes sense in White Nationalist, authoritarian, or fascist circles.
Facebook and Fox are complicit in fomenting these *right-wing domestic terrorists groups*.
Lewk, was the cop who shot Jacob Blake seven times in the back defending himself from a credible threat, or was he abusing his power as a cop and engaging in police brutality?
Defending himself and bystandards from a credible threat. Two justifications come to mind.
1. Blake had already grappled with officers and was now reaching (as opposed to getting in) for something in his vehicle. The automatic assumption when a violent person with an arrest warrant who just fought with the police is doing here, is going for a weapon.
2. There were children in the vehicle. The police were responding to a Domestic Violence call of someone who was violating a restraining order against the woman he was accused of sexually assaulting. This is a man who cannot be left alone with children and the cops must have realized that Blake was a potential danger for those children. If he was reaching OR if he was trying to get into the car to drive away, lethal force was justified.
Last edited by Lewkowski; 09-02-2020 at 05:54 AM. Reason: Whoops pulled a Biden, credit = credible
Bystandards and credit threat? lol
Your excuse for police racial profiling, and subsequent escalation of police violence is pathetic. You know damn well if Blake had been a white man, the cops would have treated him differently (even with outstanding warrants or domestic violence complaints). Just like they treated Rittenhouse differently after he'd shot and killed two people with his assault rifle in plain sight. They gave him water, and let him return to Illinois.
Now the police union is defending this blatant abuse of police power, and you're okay with it because.....
But back to the guy who sexually assaulted a woman, returned to her home and violated a restraining order, then store her keys. That guy. Do you think the cops had a duty to stop him from leaving in a car full of kids? When their efforts at grappling and Tazers were deployed, what would have been the alternative at that point? And if he does get in the vehicle and start driving now we have a high speed chase with kids in the back seat. Yeah...
Jfc how dumb are you?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You don't understand the basic facts of what happened. The giving out of water happened prior to any shootings. The police have stated they did not know that Kyle was the shooter.
"Meanwhile, Kenosha police Chief Daniel Miskinis on Friday defended police after they allowed Rittenhouse, 17, of Antioch, Illinois, to leave the scene of Tuesday's deadly shooting in the protest-wracked city even though the teen was holding a rifle and had his hands up in what many interpret as a gesture of surrender.
"There were a lot of people in the area, a lot of people with weapons, and unfortunately, a lot of gunfire," Miskinis said at a news conference Friday. "What the officers were ... driving into was a shots fired complaint, not a shooting, not a person down complaint. We have had many of those over the course of this unfortunate event.
"They're responding to that, they see someone walking toward them with their hands up," Miskinis said. "That, too, isn't out of the ordinary given all the events going on. ... We have armed individuals out protesting, or counterprotesting, or simply walking around exercising their right, (who) will put their hands up. It might have been abnormal two weeks ago. It's no longer abnormal. There's nothing to suggest this individual was involved in criminal behavior.""
You seem to have a very low standard for efficient police interventions. Do you really believe the only way to stop a man whose undershirt you are pulling is to shoot him 7 times in the back?
Congratulations America
At that point, very likely. Those cops had him on the ground and he fought them off, you got someone on the ground and you can't keep him there with two people it just isn't going to happen once he's standing. They also deployed Tazer twice and no luck with that either. Seemed like they exhausted their options.
No they hadn't. You keep going. They could have used another tazer or a baton on him. Shooting seven times was overkill.
Or, y'know, used deescalatory tactics.
I just read a book on that matter where the authors told a story by a female police officer who was able to talk down a belligerent drunk man. He even agreed when she told him: "You know that I have to take you in, right?" and proceeded to follow voluntarily. But shortly after that her colleagues arrived, roughhandled the guy (even though he was not aggressive anymore) and the situation promptly went out of control again. At that point she'd have loved to punch her colleagues for being such morons.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The video looks like that would mean letting him get in the car and drive away. Any other suggestions on what might have been done to deescalate?
Edit: Without letting him drive away I mean?
Last edited by Being; 09-03-2020 at 06:53 PM.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Lewk, you're defending the indefensible. Police using their firearm is *supposed* to be the last-resort when they don't have other, better options.
*IF* the cop had to use his firearm (still debatable) he could have given a warning shot, or shot at the car tires, or even his foot. He could have let him drive away, called for back-up and set up road blocks, or put down those tire-piercing chains. Or sent other cops to his home address! But Blake did NOT need to be shot seven times in the back. You're also making the same bad assumptions the cops did -- that his children were in danger, or that a high-speed chase would ensue. *IF* they cared so much about the children they wouldn't have shot their dad while they watched helplessly, or endangered them from ricocheted bullets.
Bottom line: police shouldn't use an arrest warrant, or a violation of a restraining order, or even resisting arrest to justify shooting people. And they're not supposed to use their service weapons to act as judge-and-jury. Cops have great power and authority, with a solemn responsibility to show restraint as they protect and serve. Oh wait, you're the guy who thinks it's ok to shoot homeless people stealing toothpaste.
Back to Rittenhouse: you're the one who doesn't understand the facts. Or why the police treat white, armed vigilante/militia differently than unarmed black protesters. There's a history of this (whether you call it a double standard or flat out racism) and it's been entrenched in police culture far too long. Here's just one link outside your Fox and Trump denial bubble: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/white...=pocket-newtab
Biden...lol. "I'm going to go to Kenosha and help the community heal after the shootings. But first let me make an awkward joke about getting shot if I reveal my tax plan." Bruh
Widespread consensus that Biden more presidential quality in his brief time in kenosha than Trump has during his entire term. He was able to express empathy, for example. Your attempts to distract from that aren't particularly effectiveas you know by now, shit-eaters like you aren't taken seriously.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You didn't really answer the question. Just said people would get bored by politics, and want a return to normal. Newsflash: the old normal doesn't work for most people.
And your reference to inciting fear & punishment as a deterrent to protests (and criminal behavior) is also outdated. Just like spanking kids into submission lost favor a few decades ago. Seriously, you need to update your mental comprehension files.
Way to ignore the posts directly aimed at you, Lewk.Rather hard to engage a troll but I'll try again (so I might learn how to talk with people like you in real life).
The current chaos and social strife is happening in Trump's America. What makes you think things would be better if he got a second term?
A few reasons.Way to ignore the posts directly aimed at you, Lewk.
The current chaos and social strife is happening in Trump's America. What makes you think things would be better if he got a second term?
1. Long-term the calculating Left will change tactics. Already we are seeing more liberals coming out against the riots because they see the race tightening and they are worried about the rust belt vote. If Trump wins the moderates will blame the rabid Left's rioting and support will start to get pulled.
2. I suspect we'll see a sharp increase of violence, especially if the race is close as the crazy Left can't swallow the results. We'll see a day or two of rioting and then the National Guard comes out and it dies down. Then the DOJ gets to work and puts extraordinary effort to absolutely destroy all violent rioters. National Guard that get attacked can be prosecuted federally. People going to prison for years will create a climate of fear. Yes you may peacefully protest but you can never do so violently without facing sanction.
3. Bottom line is people will be worn out of politics. They'll just want to go back to living as normal and realize that no monumental change is going to occur.
That's my armchair analysis.
Lmao this is something you fapped out because the next Left Behind book is taking too long you fucking joke
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
1. You have this totally backwards. If Biden loses then the left are likely to say "we gave moderate Biden a go and he lost, time for someone like Sanders".
2 & 3 OMG what to say? Yeah America's going to be led by "a climate of fear"?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote