Republican senator, swarmed by protesters after Trump speech, calls for FBI probe

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Totally disagree with you, whether it's extremism from the right or left of politics violence is a known factor and encouraged. I recall the FBI identified far right motivated murders in the US more common than those from the far left. Haven't checked how the numbers currently compare.

Yeah, obfuscate the fact that the extremism you were referring to were Trump supporters.  I call BS.

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I think I’ve explained it well enough. Please do your own reading. 

You ain't no lawyer.

[Mama Noodle]

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I’ll debate when you come back with something to debate. All you’ve done is demand me to show you something you can easily read yourself. 
Come back with an actual point and I’ll debate you. 

 

 

You posted a novel of Wisconsin law with your own opinion added without cites of the statutes you’re playing lawyer over and that’s not how this works. 
 

Up to you, but let it be public you’re backing away. 

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You are being purposely obtrusive. He is not of legal age to carry a gun. That makes it illegal. 
And yes he was heavily armed with a semi- automatic long gun. 
My only correction will be “guns” as it seems he only needed the one to kill 2 people and injure another. 

Heavily armed is hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement, embellishment, magnification.  He had an AR-15.  No need to characterize him as Rambo.  Again, the disingenuousness is getting to much to deal with from you.

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Rimmer]

An incomprehensible troll post in weird fonts has been removed

[JensenZ]

On 8/29/2020 at 12:29 PM, polpott said:

So why did Paul make such inflammatory claims before the investigation was done.

What "inflammatory claims" and what investigation "was done"?

[johnnybangkok]

3 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

 

You posted a novel of Wisconsin law with your own opinion added without cites of the statutes you’re playing lawyer over and that’s not how this works. 
 

Up to you, but let it be public you’re backing away. 

Oh for god sake. Here:- 

 

'If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

The boy (because that's what he is) had every opportunity to 'flee or retreat' the situation (starting with not being there in the first place) but rather than do that, he directly put himself in the fray. 

 

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.

Kyle Rittenhouse was already committing a crime by being in possession of a firearm he was too young to have and for carrying it across state lines.

 

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

Joseph Rosenbaum, the first victim was unarmed and not one of those chasing Kyle Rittenhouse, what with him being already dead. Others were obviously provoked because of this murder and Rittenhouse could have 'escaped' by simply surrendering to the police (which he eventually did after shooting 2 more people).

 

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Kyle Rittenhouse certainly provoked an attack and since one of his 'assailants' was only armed with a skateboard and the other wasn't armed at all, you could easily argue that Rittenhouse had 'intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death'

 

His only chance here is that Gaige Grosskreutz (the one he wounded), appeared to be holding a gun when he approached Rittenhouse after he shot Huber (the one with the skateboard) and that obviously he was chased by a crowd BUT do remember he had already shot and killed an unarmed civilian (Joseph Rosenbaum) 3 times before he came across the other 2, so if there's any 'self-defence' with the 2nd and 3rd victims, there certainly isn't with the first. 

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Heavily armed is hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement, embellishment, magnification.  He had an AR-15.  No need to characterize him as Rambo.  Again, the disingenuousness is getting to much to deal with from you.

 

Well it was obviously 'heavy' enough to kill 2 and wound another.

And you nitt-picking irrelavent points to try and score some imaginary points rather than addressing the main point is definately getting too much to deal with from you.

 

[JensenZ]

 

On 8/29/2020 at 8:20 AM, polpott said:

On 8/29/2020 at 8:19 AM, Cryingdick said:

 

I am too lazy to type right now but the thing about him co-sponsoring laws against no knock warrants is hilarious. They were protesting the girl's death while attacking the guy that is sponsoring legislation to ban no knock warrants which is how she died. You can't make this up.

Rand Paul did.

What did Rand Paul make up?

 

Rand Paul didn't co-sponsor the "Justice for Breonna Taylor Act", he drafted it. He's a good bloke and should be able to walk the streets of DC with his wife and friends in safety.

 

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/11/breonna-taylor-shooting-rand-paul-files-bill-ban-no-knock-warrants/5345478002/

 

These rioters are too stupid to realise they are going to make Trump re-election more likely.

 

Reason for edit: wrong link

 

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by JensenZ

[OneMoreFarang]

20 hours ago, Scott said:

Fox News is a credible source.   Sources that fact check information are generally considered credible sources.   Some sources are considered as biased in what they report, but they are tend to be truthful.  

 

Donald Trump is the President, so he is the news.  Just take care what source you quote him from.  

 

Does Fox News fact check?

They publish constantly untrue information - checked by professional fact checkers.

[RANGER55]

20 hours ago, landtrout said:

 

  This is quite literally a bald faced lie.

Anyone posting this on a public forum is quite literally a bald faced liar.

Well you are quit the key board warrior aren’t you there boy. Its so manly calling some one a liar behind that keyboard. Where you at, down in your mommy’s basement.

[polpott]

19 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

What "inflammatory claims" and what investigation "was done"?

Read the post I was replying to.

[JensenZ]

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

Read the post I was replying to.

I wrote the post you were replying too.

 

 

[polpott]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Dude is a common term in the U.S. and is in no way derogatory.  Been used since at least the 60's.  I understand you're from the U.K. and possibly you wouldn't know but it's such a common term that I'd be surprised that Brits weren't familiar with it.

Yes we were familiar with it in the 80s. I always called my son Dude, but its really old now. Uncool, sub zero.

[candide]

12 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Well it was obviously 'heavy' enough to kill 2 and wound another.

And you nitt-picking irrelavent points to try and score some imaginary points rather than addressing the main point is definately getting too much to deal with from you.

 

Come on, it's only an AR-15! It's just for kids to have fun! ????

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Oh for god sake. Here:- 

 

'If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

The boy (because that's what he is) had every opportunity to 'flee or retreat' the situation (starting with not being there in the first place) but rather than do that, he directly put himself in the fray. 

 

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.

Kyle Rittenhouse was already committing a crime by being in possession of a firearm he was too young to have and for carrying it across state lines.

 

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

Joseph Rosenbaum, the first victim was unarmed and not one of those chasing Kyle Rittenhouse, what with him being already dead. Others were obviously provoked because of this murder and Rittenhouse could have 'escaped' by simply surrendering to the police (which he eventually did after shooting 2 more people).

 

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Kyle Rittenhouse certainly provoked an attack and since one of his 'assailants' was only armed with a skateboard and the other wasn't armed at all, you could easily argue that Rittenhouse had 'intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death'

 

His only chance here is that Gaige Grosskreutz (the one he wounded), appeared to be holding a gun when he approached Rittenhouse after he shot Huber (the one with the skateboard) and that obviously he was chased by a crowd BUT do remember he had already shot and killed an unarmed civilian (Joseph Rosenbaum) 3 times before he came across the other 2, so if there's any 'self-defence' with the 2nd and 3rd victims, there certainly isn't with the first. 

 

 

LOL.  Again, a lawyer you ain't.  Spending some time on the Internet looking up the laws that might apply in this case doesn't make for being a legal beagle.  I'll wait for the actual legal proceedings to commence and the real facts to be presented rather than listen to a wholly biased non-lawyer relying only on the videos he's seen or the news reports he's heard and read for facts explain the intricacies of Wisconsin law as they apply to a complex case.

[johnnybangkok]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  Again, a lawyer you ain't.  Spending some time on the Internet looking up the laws that might apply in this case doesn't make for being a legal beagle.  I'll wait for the actual legal proceedings to commence and the real facts to be presented rather than listen to a wholly biased non-lawyer relying only on the videos he's seen or the news reports he's heard and read for facts explain the intricacies of Wisconsin law as they apply to a complex case.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you. I mean you always 'wait for the actual legal proceedings to commence and the real facts to be presented' before you make any comments.

It's the thorougness we have all come to expect from you.

[JensenZ]

8 minutes ago, polpott said:

Yes we were familiar with it in the 80s. I always called my son Dude, but its really old now. Uncool, sub zero.

So educate the old dudes here. What is the new, cool, above-zero and recommended replacement for "dude" in the US?

[RANGER55]

8 hours ago, landtrout said:

      So, you would join RANGER55 in asserting that "No, actually that is the democratic party’s platform. You either vote for us are(sic) we will continue to lot(sic) and burn." Is that right?

 

Here is a link to the 2020 Democratic Party Platform: https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

 

I've read it through, and am unable to find the plank that both RANGER55 and now you are referring to. Please point out the section that reads: "You either vote for us are we will continue to lot and burn." It's quite a long and interesting read, so take all the time you need!

 

When you're done with that, you might want to have a look at the 2020 Republican Party Platform.

 

Unfortunately, none exists.

Hey landtrout, I don’t have to. You and the rest say it over and over here on TV. If you would like the rioting and looting to stop get Trump out. Read you and your other Trump hate posts. Get Trump out and the violence will stop. You and others say it over and over.

 

On 08/26, Don Lemon one of the CNN anchor people let the old cat out of the bag. On CNN he said this violence is hurting our poll numbers. Biden needs to come out and make a statement.

 

BOOM, the next day Biden put out a rambling statement and finally at the end he says something like (and this violence is not good for anybody and needs to stop).

So, I guess Lemon, CNN is working for the democrats. Lemon is now an adviser for Biden? Of course we already knew that.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/cnns-don-lemon-warns-dems-about-ignoring-riots-nationwide/

 

“But guess what? The rioting has to stop,” Lemon continued. “Chris, as you know and I know, it’s showing up in the polling. It’s showing up in focus groups. It is the only thing – it is the only thing right now that is sticking.”

Biden eventually spoke out in a tweet Wednesday afternoon, saying Blake’s shooting made him “sick” but calling for an end to violence.

Edited August 30, 2020 by RANGER55

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I wouldn't expect anything less from you. I mean you always 'wait for the actual legal proceedings to commence and the real facts to be presented' before you make any comments.

It's the thorougness we have all come to expect from you.

No problem with comments, opinions or even speculations.  But I'll shy away from offering legal opinions when I'm not qualified.

[candide]

7 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

Hey landtrout, I don’t have to. You and the rest say it over and over here on TV. If you would like the rioting and looting to stop get Trump out. Read you and your other trump hates post. Get Trump out and the violence will stop. You and others say it over and over.

Which post, for example? According to you there must be plenty of them.

[johnnybangkok]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No problem with comments, opinions or even speculations.  But I'll shy away from offering legal opinions when I'm not qualified.

Oh please. No one's offering a a 'legal opinion'; I'm not Kyle Rittenhouse's defence attorney nor do i pretend to be a lawyer. 

It's obviously comment, opinion and/or speculation so if you'd like to refute my comment, opinion and/or speculation then do so with your own comment, opinion and/or speculation but just try not to throw your toys out the pram when someone comes up with a perfectly good argument against your own.

You claimed self-defence; I showed how it was unlikely to be that with some pretty convincing Wisconsin legal statutes, but I'm willing to be argued otherwise with equal facts and legal statutes.

That's how this works. 

[Tug]

28 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

Hey landtrout, I don’t have to. You and the rest say it over and over here on TV. If you would like the rioting and looting to stop get Trump out. Read you and your other Trump hate posts. Get Trump out and the violence will stop. You and others say it over and over.

 

On 08/26, Don Lemon one of the CNN anchor people let the old cat out of the bag. On CNN he said this violence is hurting our poll numbers. Biden needs to come out and make a statement.

 

BOOM, the next day Biden put out a rambling statement and finally at the end he says something like (and this violence is not good for anybody and needs to stop).

So, I guess Lemon, CNN is working for the democrats. Lemon is now an adviser for Biden? Of course we already knew that.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/cnns-don-lemon-warns-dems-about-ignoring-riots-nationwide/

 

“But guess what? The rioting has to stop,” Lemon continued. “Chris, as you know and I know, it’s showing up in the polling. It’s showing up in focus groups. It is the only thing – it is the only thing right now that is sticking.”

Biden eventually spoke out in a tweet Wednesday afternoon, saying Blake’s shooting made him “sick” but calling for an end to violence.

You are 100% correct that many would like the violence to stop it plays direct into trumps plans to incite the violence and increases his chance to destroy our democracy trump loves to cloak himself in patriotism and the flag please consider his deeds not his words imo his deeds as follows he’s a draft dodger he’s most likely a tax cheat he insults pows and attacks gold star families if they disagree with him he has sent our allies and their families to their deaths (Kurds) he flaunts the law but claims to be the law and order guy undermines out elections wrecks the post office to suppress the vote and now he’s hiding the intelligence reports on foreign interference in the election he active solicits foreign interference he holds tightly packed events during the pandemic don’t be a mark look at his deeds not his words he’s going to say whatever it is he thinks you want to hear and I can’t belive there are so many posts on this weirdo fringe senator getting pushed big deal what did he expect a hug and a kiss for backing the divider in chief?

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Oh please. No one's offering a a 'legal opinion'; I'm not Kyle Rittenhouse's defence attorney nor do i pretend to be a lawyer. 

It's obviously comment, opinion and/or speculation so if you'd like to refute my comment, opinion and/or speculation then do so with your own comment, opinion and/or speculation but just try not to throw your toys out the pram when someone comes up with a perfectly good argument against your own.

You claimed self-defence; I showed how it was unlikely to be that with some pretty convincing Wisconsin legal statutes, but I'm willing to be argued otherwise with equal facts and legal statutes.

That's how this works. 

Sorry johnny, but as I said I'm not qualified to debate the legal statutes and how they would apply in this case.  It's beyond my scope.  I'm not a lawyer so I won't attempt to interpret complex laws regarding firearms in Wisconsin and pretend to claim with definitiveness which laws are applicable and why.  Especially when I am not fully apprised of all the facts.  Neither am I a doctor so you'll never hear me give medical advice.  Nor am I a financier so I won't be advising anyone on how to handle their money.

 

That's how that works.

[Mama Noodle]

51 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I wouldn't expect anything less from you. I mean you always 'wait for the actual legal proceedings to commence and the real facts to be presented' before you make any comments.

It's the thorougness we have all come to expect from you.

It’s funny because clearly the bolded parts - you don’t know how they are actually applied. 
 

That is all relevant if he was the aggressor. He 100% was not. He was running from the mob BEFORE the first kill all the way up to the last and beyond. 
 

Your highlights and the video evidence and the court docs and the video literally 100% back him up. 
 

He was not provoking anyone, and was not engaged in a criminal act as defined by law. You forfeit your right when you are engaged literally at the time, regardless of the situation, of an actual crime at the time of the shooting. He wasn’t. Merely him being there with a rifle underage is not committing a crime with said rifle. 

[johnnybangkok]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry johnny, but as I said I'm not qualified to debate the legal statutes and how they would apply in this case.  It's beyond my scope.  I'm not a lawyer so I won't attempt to interpret complex laws regarding firearms in Wisconsin and pretend to claim with definitiveness which laws are applicable and why.  Especially when I am not fully apprised of all the facts.  Neither am I a doctor so you'll never hear me give medical advice.  Nor am I a financier so I won't be advising anyone on how to handle their money.

 

That's how that works.

I accept your surrender

[johnnybangkok]

15 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

It’s funny because clearly the bolded parts - you don’t know how they are actually applied. 
 

That is all relevant if he was the aggressor. He 100% was not. He was running from the mob BEFORE the first kill all the way up to the last and beyond. 
 

Your highlights and the video evidence and the court docs and the video literally 100% back him up. 
 

He was not provoking anyone, and was not engaged in a criminal act as defined by law. You forfeit your right when you are engaged literally at the time, regardless of the situation, of an actual crime at the time of the shooting. He wasn’t. Merely him being there with a rifle underage is not committing a crime with said rifle. 

Welcome back Mama.

The problem with your reasoning is the first shooting.

He had already shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, an unarmed civilian BEFORE he was chased. That was why he was being chased. As I have already mentioned in my previous posts (giving you all an easy out), you could very easily argue that thereafter it was self-defence as the angry mob (one with a gun) tried to disarm him BUT it's not going to be easy to plead self-defence with the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum. Add to this a gun he shouldn't have even had, moved across county lines and you have a very tenuos self-defence to say the least.

Anyway. I at least appreciate you coming back with a semblance of an argument rather than other who think we all have to be lawyers to comment.

Off to bed now so debate you later.

 

 

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

He had already shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, an unarmed civilian BEFORE he was chased

This is false. 100%. I’ve proven this several times and it’s been widely reported. You should read the Jacob Blake thread we’ve been through this. You’re late to the party. 

[johnnybangkok]

11 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

This is false. 100%. I’ve proven this several times and it’s been widely reported. You should read the Jacob Blake thread we’ve been through this. You’re late to the party. 

Not according to this and many, many other sources. 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-kyle-rittenhouse-and-what-happened-in-the-kenosha-shootings-11598653456

[surangw]

not the attention he was hoping for then ?