Jump to content

Black man shot in back by police in Wisconsin city, governor says, curfew imposed


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Not when they're a teenager in illegal possession of a rifle who, presumably, went out looking to attack protesters and illegally take the law into his own hands... Since where he allegedly did the shootings was nowhere related to his home/family etc...  He was out trying to be a vigilante and allegedly killed people... That's the psycho in the scene.


Another who just believes whatever they want. 
 

If you can show me proof that the kid “went out looking to attack protesters” in any way - I’ll concede. Until then you’re posting fake news. 
 

Did you know hamburger arm pistol guy posted on FB that he regrets not being able to empty his clip into the kid? Bet you didn’t know that the kid has not retained the same lawyer as Nick Sandmann and he’s no doubt gonna have a field day with that FB post. 

  • Like 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Noteworthy that you almost never post any legitimate sources or attribution for the various claims you make here...


You go first, bud. 

  • Like 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:


He shouldn’t have done that, and he’s gonna pay a price for it, but as far as “shooting people” goes - that was self defense. No matter the circumstances, every person has the right to defend themselves from a violent mob of psychos. 
 

What’s so hard to understand about that?

"...but as far as “shooting people” goes - that was self defense."

No, it very well wasn't!

He had shot a person FIRST and then was attacked by the "violent mob of psychos"!

You are making excuses for a TERRORIST!

 

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Read the reports. His knife was on the floormat. That's why in the video he is leaning down, no doubt retrieving the knife. They should teach the police how to pistol whip in these situations -- would save a bullet and thousand of man hours managing a riot.

The claim is, that he was carrying the knife!

That's why the cops were allegedly shouting at him to drop it!

Later ist was claimed he reached into the car and they found a knife there!

So which is it?

Was he carrying a knife, that he actually could drop, following police - orders OR was it in the car and he reached for it?

 

Posted
24 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:


Video says otherwise. The first shooting that happened, he was not the first to open fire. 
 

He was engaged first. 
 

I have been over this 10 billion times in this thread and people are going to believe whatever they WANT to believe, even in the face of insurmountable video evidence to the contrary. 
 

 

There are NUMEROUS reports, that the chase scene, you so emphatically mention over and over and over and over...was NOT the beginning of the whole shabbang!

Talking about believing what you want to believe!

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Edit: as for the facebook - post: he WASN'T able to empty his whole clip into "the kid", which means HE DIDN'T!

So he killed no one- "the kid" did!


Uh huh, what it did show was that he INTENDED to shoot the kid and regrets he wasn’t able to, and he wasn’t able to shoot the kid because....

 

Kid damn near blew his arm off. 
 

So the whole “murder” “innocent protester” narrative just got nuked. 

  • Like 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Noteworthy that you almost never post any legitimate sources or attribution for the various claims you make here...


That’s funny, I’ve been the first to provide evidence that Blake had a knife, first to provide scanner audio showing the cops knew who he was and that he had warrants. First to provide evidence that the cops were telling him to “drop the knife” and first to show that he was tased and fought with the cops. 
 

What have you done? Nothing but whine about militias and white supremacists and deflect all day long. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:


Uh huh, what it did show was that he INTENDED to shoot the kid and regrets he wasn’t able to, and he wasn’t able to shoot the kid because....

 

Kid damn near blew his arm off. 
 

So the whole “murder” “innocent protester” narrative just got nuked. 

What are you on about?

"The kid" killed a person before that incident you base your whole BS- argument on!

Then he was chased by bystanders, who attacked him with a skateboard (uuuuuiiii) and a handgun!

Because...you know...HE KILLED SOMEONE AND HAD A BIG@$$ GUN!

Quiet obviously, having a peaceful conversation with wannabe- Rambo was a bit out of the question!

Posted
7 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

What are you on about?

"The kid" killed a person before that incident you base your whole BS- argument on!

 

Did not shoot first, did not attack first. Facts are painful for you, I’m sure. 
 

First shooting

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Did not shoot first, did not attack first. Facts are painful for you, I’m sure. 
 

First shooting

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

Your link does not support your claim.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Then what is the relevance of him, reaching into the car?

Did he have a second, bigger knife there?

Also: if he dropped the knife, when he was shot, he posed no threat at all, because -as you may remember - he was shot FROM BEHIND!

Waiting for mor bogus theories!

Please- entertain me!

Reaching for a gun perhaps.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

It's not a "boycott"- it's a strike!

Looks the same, but is very different!

Either way, who cares.

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Did not shoot first, did not attack first. Facts are painful for you, I’m sure. 
 

First shooting

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

 

What's unexplained, and probably unknown at this point, is why the various protesters were chasing him prior to the first shooting he did, assuming the NYT's reconstruction is accurate.

 

Quote

He eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning. Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away.

 

And then, of course, it's more than a bit curious that with the NYT's reference to all the various gunfire occurring at the time, Rittenhouse seems to be the only person who actually shot and killed anyone.

 

Quote

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

 

As I said in a prior post, he had no business being there in the first place, in violation of curfew, in illegal possession of a rifle, and 20+ miles away from his home. He was being a vigilante, when he should have been at home watching Charles Bronson movies on TV and eating popcorn.  But now he's in jail and facing homicide charges.

 

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Your link does not support your claim.


Maybe you understand words differently than me but, kid did not shoot first, was trying to run away from the mob BEFORE the first shooting, he was being pursued by the mob BEFORE the first shooting, heard a gunshot and was lunged at by a rioter who ended up dead. That’s shooting #1. 
 

That is in no way what you and all the others have been saying. 
 

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

What's unexplained, and probably unknown at this point, is why the various protesters were chasing him prior to the first shooting he did, assuming the NYT's reconstruction is accurate.

 

 

And then, of course, it's more than a bit curious that with the NYT's reference to all the various gunfire occurring at the time, Rittenhouse seems to be the only person who actually shot and killed anyone.

 

 

As I said in a prior post, he had no business being there in the first place, in violation of curfew, in illegal possession of a rifle, and 20+ miles away from his home. He was being a vigilante, when he should have been at home watching Charles Bronson movies on TV and eating popcorn.  But now he's in jail and facing homicide charges.

 


Or, you could just say, “yes Mama Noodle, you were right and have been right all along, I was wrong and shouldn’t have insinuated that you were lying” 

 

That would be sufficient. 

  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:


Or, you could just say, “yes Mama Noodle, you were right and have been right all along, I was wrong and shouldn’t have insinuated that you were lying” 

 

That would be sufficient. 

 

I've said what I've said all along... he's charged with homicide for killing two people and wounding a third. He was a minor in violation of curfew and in illegal possession of a rifle who had no business being out a night in the middle of such a protest. He went out looking for trouble, and he found it.

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2020 at 6:44 PM, EVENKEEL said:

Nope, 17 yrs of qualifying 9 mm, shotgun and M-14. And you?

Do you think you would have been able to put a few 9mm slugs in the guys leg from that distance ?

Edited by rvaviator
.
Posted
5 minutes ago, rvaviator said:

Do you think you would have been able to put a few 9mm slugs in the guys leg from that distance ?

Why did three officers even let it get to that stage.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 8/26/2020 at 9:02 PM, BritManToo said:

I always thought it was the IRA bombing Mrs. Thatcher in Brighton that scared the UK government into submission.

..... and I was living in Brighton at the time.

and 'funny' is is not that the IRA (terrorist organization)  received donation from many white Americans  who supported the 'freedom fight' .... NORAD was it ?

Posted
57 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

<snip> He was being a vigilante, . . . <snip>

You need to get your verbiage right.  A vigilante is someone who takes the law into his own hands.  From what is known Rittenhouse was there to defend property.  That is not the definition of a vigilante.

  • Sad 1
Posted
On 8/27/2020 at 12:34 PM, bodga said:

The ones looting should be shot.

Did you listen to what the owner was saying toward the end ? 'We have to come together' 'We have to solve this problem together ......'  

 

So now you want to make looting a capital offense ?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You need to get your verbiage right.  A vigilante is someone who takes the law into his own hands.  From what is known Rittenhouse was there to defend property.  That is not the definition of a vigilante.

Quote TallGuyJohninBkk: As I said in a prior post, he had no business being there in the first place, in violation of curfew, in illegal possession of a rifle, and 20+ miles away from his home.

 

He took the law into his own hands and was nowhere close to "defending his property".

Posted
On 8/27/2020 at 12:46 PM, Sujo said:

Humour me. Why can trump fix it after the election but cannot fix it now.

image.png.5aa7bff346839bb92f4702849ad52c4e.png

Sound like a fair question to me ..

 

After all Mr T have had 4 years to make a great harmonious and inclusive society  .... Making America Great again ..  So now .. the slogan should be .. Making 'America even greater' .... 

Posted
5 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Quote TallGuyJohninBkk: As I said in a prior post, he had no business being there in the first place, in violation of curfew, in illegal possession of a rifle, and 20+ miles away from his home.

 

He took the law into his own hands and was nowhere close to "defending his property".

TallGuyJohninBkk's quote is irrelevant to my point.

 

In what way did he take the law into his own hands?  Was he trying to bust illegal protesters?  No.  So be specific in how he was taking the law into his own hands.  Pretend you're in a courtroom and you have to be factual and BS wont cut it.

 

I didn't write "his property," I wrote "property."  Don't start making things up now . . . 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...