Trump visits Kenosha, not to urge racial healing but to back police

[CorpusChristie]

13 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Don't know why, but you keep on playing deceitful games. The guy was not licensed to open carry the weapon in Wisconsin.  

Why is that matter important ?

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, DefaultName said:

I grew up in a non-gun culture (UK) but even I am wondering at what point the police were supposed to shoot him?

When he resisted legitimate arrest?

When he pulled a knife?

When he threatened police with it?

When he refused to drop it?

When he dived into the footwell of his car for an unknown weapon?

When he came back out with that weapon?

When he attacked police with it?

 

IMO, they shot at the right time.  What I don't understand is why 7 bullets from zero range?  Aren't police trained better than that?

 

I also don't understand the riots over lowlife criminals who prey mainly on they're own colour.  Their communities are better off without them.

From what I researched, very little training is done on de-escalation or negotiation or how to handle deranged offenders in the US Police Force. They are given more training on dispensing their firearms. Perhaps de-funding and allocating funds to give more time for such training will help decrease reckless killings by police officers. 

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

'What if I told you everything you knew was a lie?'  What if the Democrats have been selling themselves as the saviors for the blacks, and pocketing the funds for 50 years.  What if Bill DeBlasio's wife was given $900M for black education in New York, and nobody can determine where the money went?  Why is Baltimore the TOP 5 in the country in per pupil spending, but Zero graduates were proficient in math?  C'mon man, turn off CNN and take the RED PILL.  ????

What if you provided a source for your claims.

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Again you're being deceitful.

 
You said he needed a license. You don’t need a license to open carry. Then you post that, which again, much like the others in this thread is not the whole story. 
 

There are exemptions that can apply if you are 16 and up for rifles that can be used for hunting, which applies to the AR. 
 

Id really appreciate if you all would just try and learn some chit here instead of implying I’m lying. 

[johnnybangkok]

32 minutes ago, watthong said:

 

Your effort of self-educating is laudable but if part of it consisted of watching the video clip you are touting then you're defeating your own purpose. Keep on watching the likes of such video (tons of them out there - hint: they all have moniker clearly stating their stance) and soon you'll be in tune with the MAGA crowd. 

 

Juvenile minds are malleable - just like that of the teenage shooter/murderer Kyle Rittenhouse.

One tip: If you can't tell what's right and what's wrong - or in your own words what's "unsunsational and objective" - then look inward, not outward. Good luck,

Thanks for the condescention. 

If you had taken the time to investigate this yourself, you will see my change of view was purely based on the legal aspects. I had looked at the legal parts of the matter before and had concluded there was no way Rittenhouse was going to get away with self-defence but actually hearing legal insights into actual Winconsin statutes throws a different light on the matter.

I am not advocating Rittenhouse or indeed any aspect of a 17 year old wandering around with an Ar-15 to 'protect' a neighbourhood he's not even from or in no way is it to excuse the rest of the unhinged MAGA crowd, but being being informed on the legal aspects should not be seen as the capitulation you are trying to make out and more an opportunity to be educated.

However, if that doesn't appeal to you and you're not open to be better informed then that's your prerogative but I think we both know who then really needs to look inwards.  

[Matzzon]

6 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

The good people of Kensosha are not fooled by carefully editted video footage, this isn't the first time a narrative has been crafted to attack conservatives, only later to spectacularly implode(Sandmann and Smollett for 2 recent examples of this exact thing). Trump's visit is a great show of strength. Potential rioters, looters, and anarchists may not have Kyle to contend with, but not to worry, Trump himself is watching. 

 

"Kenosha GOP chairwoman says '80% of people in the city support teenage gunman Kyle Rittenhouse' - and the remaining 20% are 'probably people that can't stand Trump'"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8686969/Kenosha-GOP-chair-says-80-people-support-Kyle-Rittenhouse-did.html

I am just wondering if you have a poster of your idol on the wall, next to the flag?

[simple1]

Just now, CorpusChristie said:

Why is that matter important ?

 

The guy killed two people - If you consider an under aged guy illegally carrying a loaded weapon in a public space, with the outcome being two killed, OK, so be it.

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

Let me ask my kin who participated in stealing privately owned British tea and burned it at GreenwichNew Jersey (one of five such tea parties). I much prefer reason in addressing an issue but I recognize that when issues are not addressed over a long period of time, violence is often the result.

My home town too had a tea party as well. https://historicaldigression.com/2015/01/24/a-tea-party-tories-and-redcoats-in-marshfield/

[CorpusChristie]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The guy killed two people - If you consider an under aged guy illegally carrying a loaded weapon in a public space, with the outcome being two killed, OK, so be it.

I really makes no difference as to whether he was 17 or 18 or 118

Whether he was either legally or illegally carrying  the gun is irrelevant 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

18 in most states. Here are the facts on AR15s

 

 

The facts?  Just the facts?  Or are you posting it for the "hidden" message in this video?  LOL.  Why not just be honest and forthright and come out and say "people kill other people, sometimes using an AR-15, so if we take AR-15s away from people then problem solved." 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Tippaporn

[simple1]

 

8 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 
You said he needed a license. You don’t need a license to open carry. Then you post that, which again, much like the others in this thread is not the whole story. 
 

There are exemptions that can apply if you are 16 and up for rifles that can be used for hunting, which applies to the AR. 
 

Id really appreciate if you all would just try and learn some chit here instead of implying I’m lying. 

Yet again being deceitful. There is no evidence the guy was licenced to hunt or whatever in Wisconsin. In any case that's not why the individual, who is facing first degree homicide charges, was in the town. 

 

 

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

I really makes no difference as to whether he was 17 or 18 or 118

Whether he was either legally or illegally carrying  the gun is irrelevant 

 

 

Disagree, if found guilty, sentencing will take the factors into account

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Yet again being deceitful. There is no evidence the guy was licenced to hunt or whatever in Wisconsin. In any case that's not why the individual, who is facing first degree homicide charges, was in the town

 

And again, you do not need a hunting license to carry a hunting rifle, you need a hunting license to HUNT.

 

But at least we are making progress as to what will be debated in court and the meat/potatoes of the whole situation. Because even if it was deemed an illegal carry - thats a misdemeanor. Hardly an issue.

 

Just be prepared when the is acquitted or the charges are dropped for the worst of the accusations. Its gonna happen and people like myself are trying to tell you why. 

[CorpusChristie]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Disagree, if found guilty, sentencing will take the factors into account

That is an insignificance  little difference 

[wwest5829]

30 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

My home town too had a tea party as well. https://historicaldigression.com/2015/01/24/a-tea-party-tories-and-redcoats-in-marshfield/

I prefer seeing our issues acknowledged, studied with an eye to potential solutions but ... As a student of history, there have been too many issues, not addressed that turn to violence to demand attention. Sorry to see so many missing lessons from the past that can help us deal with issues today. I was not aware or Marshfield, I only saw Boston (of course), Charleston, Annapolis, Princeton and Greenwich. The issue over tea was, not surprisingly, that of economics. It is interesting to read about as there are pertinent points to be made. Right, I'll spare you.

Edited September 2, 2020 by wwest5829

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

That is an insignificance  little difference 

 

Sentencing guidelines based upon circumstances - can make a huge difference to length of sentence - enough of playing judge - bye

[CorpusChristie]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Sentencing guidelines based upon circumstances - can make a huge difference to length of sentence - enough of playing judge - bye

Yes, but we are talking about a double shooting and whether it was a justified shooting of self defense , we can discuss the Court case at a later date .

  (Bye, see you later when you get back , where you going, anyway ?)

   

[Dap]

7 hours ago, Matzzon said:

I am just surprised he is still alive.

Only because he's on the side with all the guns.

[MaxYakov]

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

36 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 
You said he needed a license. You don’t need a license to open carry. Then you post that, which again, much like the others in this thread is not the whole story. 
 

There are exemptions that can apply if you are 16 and up for rifles that can be used for hunting, which applies to the AR. 
 

Id really appreciate if you all would just try and learn some chit here instead of implying I’m lying. 

Yet again being deceitful. There is no evidence the guy was licenced to hunt or whatever in Wisconsin. In any case that's not why the individual, who is facing first degree homicide charges, was in the town. 

It's not the weight of the evidence, but seriousness of the charges, eh? Are you some kind of legal expert? Do you think Mr. Rittenhouse's actions constitute murder one (which I believe have to be premeditated)?

 

Is it beyond simple1's imagination that the charge of murder one is an overcharge? Is it even remotely possible the Democrat administration is trying to appease the mob by immediately charging him before an investigation could even be completed so as to avoid the almost unavoidable these days - mob action?

 

I say: "keep it simple, but not too simple, simple1".

 

In my best Kamala Harris' framing of the answer to such questions: Yes or no? Yes or no? 

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

As many of you here will know, I have gone on previous threads arguing vehemently for BLM and the protest movement but having investigated these matters further, I am going to do something that no Trump fans ever does and admit I may have got this wrong.

The situation regarding Jacob Blake is one that I don't think the BLM movement should be defending at all; an unsavoury character with a restraining order out on him, resisting arrest and trying to get into a car (not even his) with 3 children in the back. Tasered twice and going for a knife, the shooting was justified. The problem though is the optics; 7 shots being fired at point blank range!! I mean, talk about overkill.  

My view on Kyle Rittenhouse has also changed, having come out strongly against him in previous threads, I have watched a video from prominent Winconsin lawyer Robert Barnes who throws some very important light on the LEGAL aspects of this situation. Barnes himself is right leaning BUT is also a civil rights advocate and being from Winconsin, a legal expert in their law.

He addresses all of the issues to include travelling over state lines, illegal possesion of a firearm and of course the self-defence aspect.

Like it or not, Winconsin law heavily favors Rittenhouse and will likely mean his aquital. You can argue what was a 17 year old with a gun even doing on the streets that night (and I would say this again goes to the hearts of these matters)  but when you look at the video evidence and match it to Winconsin law, it's pretty much an open and shut case of self-defence (again hands up, I got this wrong).

We all need to educate ourselves a bit more on these matters and (like I did) not jump to immediate conclusions just because it doesn't fit into our own narrative. Both sides of this situation are fanning the flames and although I DO NOT agree with how Trump is handling all of this (As POTUS he needs to be de-escalating and all you Trump fans who blindly follow him no matter what he does or says have to hold him accountable more for this), BLM are not helping their cause by choosing battles like Jacob Blake and Kyle Rittenhouse. The looters and the hooligan element are now doing so much damage to the BLM cause (legitimate in so many other ways), they are literally handing Trump a victory he in no way deserves.   

 

For those interested, the video I'm talking about is on Youtube and titled 'Kyle Rittenhouse JUSTIFIED? Lawyers explain'. It's a bit long but worth the watch and throws vital legal light in an unsunsational and objective way.

I did watch and I know your opinions deserve valuable consideration. The lawyer,Jacob Blake is eloquent but his bias is most evident. I remain unconvinced Rittenhouse will be found innocent and not be sentenced to jail. The case against the sole policeman shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back while holding him in grasp, at the least is still excessive.

[joecoolfrog]

If the good citizens of the USA actually fall for his spiel and vote Trump in again , then quite frankly they get what they deserve.

[Mama Noodle]

7 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Is it beyond simple1's imagination that the charge of murder one is an overcharge? Is it even remotely possible the Democrat administration is trying to appease the mob by immediately charging him before an investigation could even be completed so as to avoid the almost unavoidable these days - mob action?

 

Its obvious that thats exactly what they are trying to do and the fact that the guy kyle shot in the arm, the one with glock pistol, hasnt even been arrested yet. 

[simple1]

1 minute ago, MaxYakov said:

It's not the weight of the evidence, but seriousness of the charges, eh? Are you some kind of legal expert? Do you think Mr. Rittenhouse's actions constitute murder one (which I believe have to be premeditated)?

 

Is it beyond simple1's imagination that the charge of murder one is an overcharge? Is it even remotely possible the Democrat administration is trying to appease the mob by immediately charging him before an investigation could even be completed so as to avoid the almost unavoidable these days - mob action?

 

I say: "keep it simple, but not too simple, simple1".

 

In my best Kamala Harris' framing of the answer to such questions: Yes or no? Yes or no? 

Nope, expressing my thoughts. Childish attempt at insult, plus, usual conspiracy stuff from the trump world.

 

Charges so far, have to wait see if downgraded or not

 

Prosecutors have formally charged 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, first degree reckless homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment 

 

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Nope, expressing my thoughts. Childish attempt at insult, plus, usual conspiracy stuff from the trump world.

 

Always some thick irony to be had when people who've been continually and repeatedly wrong on almost every subject decide to call others comments conspiracy theories. 

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Always some thick irony to be had when people who've been continually and repeatedly wrong on almost every subject decide to call others comments conspiracy theories. 

Exactly what have I been proven wrong - except for nit picking deceptive commentary by you

Edited September 2, 2020 by simple1

[johnnybangkok]

4 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

I did watch and I know your opinions deserve valuable consideration. The lawyer,Jacob Blake is eloquent but his bias is most evident. I remain unconvinced Rittenhouse will be found innocent and not be sentenced to jail. The case against the sole policeman shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back while holding him in grasp, at the least is still excessive.

Obviously time will tell but the idea that self-defence overides most of the other arguments is a strong one, well made. My original thought on this was perhaps the one killed and one wounded (especially the guy with the gun) after chasing him down could be argued more for self-defence but the first killing would have been impossible. However, it seems the fact that first victim 'went at him' is probably justifiable reason enough. The Blake situation is absolutely excessive but the circumstances leading up to that point are tipped heavily in the police's favor (warned numerous times, tasered, reaching for a weapon) so it seems that the 7 times shot part is (unbelievably) irrelevant to the main argument of a 'good kill'.

Emotions and confirmation bias get in the way of all this but when you look at the legality of both situations (and that's what the court will be doing) it seems there's cause in both.

 

[CorpusChristie]

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

My original thought on this was perhaps the one killed and one wounded (especially the guy with the gun) after chasing him down could be argued more for self-defence but the first killing would have been impossible

What are the circumstances of the first killing ?

(I genuinely dont know)

[Mama Noodle]

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Emotions and confirmation bias get in the way of all this but when you look at the legality of both situations (and that's what the court will be doing) it seems there's cause in both.

 

There is, and its very legitimate. Problem is, most politicians have already gotten their twitter likes and tv commentary and skewed public perception of both situations. So when the dust settles there's gonna be more chaos. The cop is gonna have a good shoot, and Kyle will get off most of the serious charges on self defense. 

But the cats out of the bag, the situation is largely inflamed by liars in the media, and to alot of people, Kyle is a white supremacist mass murderer, and Jacob Blake was a black man minding his own business then shot in the back 7 times. 

 

And the cycle continues. 

[polpott]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The facts?  Just the facts?  Or are you posting it for the "hidden" message in this video?  LOL.  Why not just be honest and forthright and come out and say "people kill other people, sometimes using an AR-15, so if we take AR-15s away from people then problem solved." 

 

I just posted the video. Do you disagree with any of the facts?

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

As many of you here will know, I have gone on previous threads arguing vehemently for BLM and the protest movement but having investigated these matters further, I am going to do something that no Trump fans ever does and admit I may have got this wrong.

The situation regarding Jacob Blake is one that I don't think the BLM movement should be defending at all; an unsavoury character with a restraining order out on him, resisting arrest and trying to get into a car (not even his) with 3 children in the back. Tasered twice and going for a knife, the shooting was justified. The problem though is the optics; 7 shots being fired at point blank range!! I mean, talk about overkill.  

My view on Kyle Rittenhouse has also changed, having come out strongly against him in previous threads, I have watched a video from prominent Winconsin lawyer Robert Barnes who throws some very important light on the LEGAL aspects of this situation. Barnes himself is right leaning BUT is also a civil rights advocate and being from Winconsin, a legal expert in their law.

He addresses all of the issues to include travelling over state lines, illegal possesion of a firearm and of course the self-defence aspect.

Like it or not, Winconsin law heavily favors Rittenhouse and will likely mean his aquital. You can argue what was a 17 year old with a gun even doing on the streets that night (and I would say this again goes to the hearts of these matters)  but when you look at the video evidence and match it to Winconsin law, it's pretty much an open and shut case of self-defence (again hands up, I got this wrong).

We all need to educate ourselves a bit more on these matters and (like I did) not jump to immediate conclusions just because it doesn't fit into our own narrative. Both sides of this situation are fanning the flames and although I DO NOT agree with how Trump is handling all of this (As POTUS he needs to be de-escalating and all you Trump fans who blindly follow him no matter what he does or says have to hold him accountable more for this), BLM are not helping their cause by choosing battles like Jacob Blake and Kyle Rittenhouse. The looters and the hooligan element are now doing so much damage to the BLM cause (legitimate in so many other ways), they are literally handing Trump a victory he in no way deserves.   

 

For those interested, the video I'm talking about is on Youtube and titled 'Kyle Rittenhouse JUSTIFIED? Lawyers explain'. It's a bit long but worth the watch and throws vital legal light in an unsunsational and objective way.

You just earned my utmost respect, johnnybangkok.  Not at all because of any alignment of views but strictly due to this one sentence:

 

"We all need to educate ourselves a bit more on these matters and (like I did) not jump to immediate conclusions just because it doesn't fit into our own narrative."

 

Many kudos for having the balls to state the truth.  You're an upstanding guy.