2 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

What are the circumstances of the first killing ?

(I genuinely dont know)

 

Mob became enraged when Kyle was trying to put out the fires they started around the business he was helping to secure. They started relentlessly chasing him and threatening him through the streets. Someone behind Kyle shot a weapon, and when kyle spun around to see what happened, the first guy lunged at him and tried to take his rifle. Kyle shot the guy, tried to give first aid, made a phone call, then had to keep running again because the mob was coming for him again.

3 hours ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

You speak the truth.  The Democrats are desperate, and will riot every-time a crackhead resists arrest and gets his wings.  Just laugh it off.  ????

Don't you mean horns?

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

Why is that matter important ?

Excuse me, Do you really consider that a question that we should take as serious? ????????????????????????

 

On the other hand, sounds like it´s so far gone that it would probably be okay for you if toddlers are carrying a hand grenade to the day care center.

Edited September 2, 20205 yr by Matzzon

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

7 bullets in the back because he had a rap sheet for domestic violence. Please sir justify the rationality of the excessive overkill and disproportionate use of lethal weapon. 

Try to follow...it's really not that hard: Someone known to the police, with a previous history of assault and an outstanding felony warrant, was again involved with the police (at the behest of a call for help...not a random stop). This individual does not comply with lawful orders to be taken into custody, is tazed TWICE, and continues to resist arrest and attempts to flee. He tries to enter a vehicle, which itself can be a deadly weapon, and is then shot by the police. Police (and any gun owner) are taught to only draw and point a firearm when a situation cannot be resolved without force/violence and the shoot is to kill, not to wound/disable, as a wounded person can still flip the situation and kill you.

Edited September 2, 20205 yr by Pattaya Spotter

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

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

I simply asked you to be honest but I guess you don't want to.  The title of the video is this:

 

The AR-15 Assault Rifle: everything you need to know

 

The title is completely misleading because the video is not about the AR-15 assault rifle.  It's an anti-gun video about the policies surrounding the AR-15.  Granted the video explains some of the AR-15's capabilities but only for the purpose of showing how scary it is to fit into the anti-gun message.

 

Do you understand at all, I mean even in the slightest, what propaganda is and how easily you can fall for it if you don't recognize it?  It wholly evident that you have difficulty identifying propaganda because you're asking me if I agree with the "facts."  Either that or you know it's propaganda and you're just trying to pull the wool over my eyes.  I don't know how to tell you this, polpott, but you're not dealing with a bunch of dumb people on this site.

18 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Don't you mean horns?

That made me spit my drink on my keyboard.

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I simply asked you to be honest but I guess you don't want to.  The title of the video is this:

 

The AR-15 Assault Rifle: everything you need to know

 

The title is completely misleading because the video is not about the AR-15 assault rifle.  It's an anti-gun video about the policies surrounding the AR-15.  Granted the video explains some of the AR-15's capabilities but only for the purpose of showing how scary it is to fit into the anti-gun message.

 

Do you understand at all, I mean even in the slightest, what propaganda is and how easily you can fall for it if you don't recognize it?  It wholly evident that you have difficulty identifying propaganda because you're asking me if I agree with the "facts."  Either that or you know it's propaganda and you're just trying to pull the wool over my eyes.  I don't know how to tell you this, polpott, but you're not dealing with a bunch of dumb people on this site.

As you are incapable of  answering as simple a question as "What facts in the video do you disagree with?" I kinda reckon I am.

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That made me spit my drink on my keyboard.

Sorry about that...how much for a new one ????

27 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Mob became enraged when Kyle was trying to put out the fires they started around the business he was helping to secure. They started relentlessly chasing him and threatening him through the streets. Someone behind Kyle shot a weapon, and when kyle spun around to see what happened, the first guy lunged at him and tried to take his rifle. Kyle shot the guy, tried to give first aid, made a phone call, then had to keep running again because the mob was coming for him again.

One narrative, there are very different views of the events, reflected in the current charges. Have to wait for the trial outcome...

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/08/31/witnesses-kenosha-shooting-see-kyle-rittenhouse-shoot-protest-jacob-blake/5675987002/

2 hours ago, polpott said:

Madness.

What is madness about it...what magically changes in a person at midnight when their time on earth ticks over from 17 years 364 days and 18 years? And a major plant of the Democrat Party is to reduce the voting age to 16 years...they apparently feel people have reached sufficient maturity to make political decisions affecting the whole country by then...so surely they would be old enough to own firearms too.

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

What is madness about it...what magically changes in a person at midnight when their time on earth ticks over from 17 years 364 days and 18 years? And a major plant of the Democrat Party is to reduce the voting age to 16 years...they apparently feel people have reached sufficient maturity to make political decisions affecting the whole country by then...so surely they would be old enough to own firearms too.

You can't kill 35 of your school mates by putting an "X" in a box.

Reuters is so blatantly biased against Trump that I cannot understand why TV uses them as a news feed. Or are they equally biased. As a Brit I notice that American readers of TV seem evenly divided on this issue but not the management.

 

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

Plus trump lied again claiming he was responsible for re-establishing order, it was the democratic governor who had already ordered the national guard in.

The way it works is the governor asks for the national guards as needed, and Trump sends them out.
Trump has begged governors to request the national guards for months in places like Portland, but many governors refuse, and let the riots continue.

A lot of the racial tensions are due to the media that hypes things out, often distorts the truth, and milks as much money as possible from the division.

14 minutes ago, polpott said:

You can't kill 35 of your school mates by putting an "X" in a box.

No...just raise their taxes and send them to war.

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

No...just raise their taxes and send them to war.

I wouldn't vote for either of those either.

 

Best voting for Biden, he will tax the rich not the poor (opposite policy to Trump) and won't go round the world trying to start wars.

32 minutes ago, simple1 said:

One narrative, there are very different views of the events, reflected in the current charges. Have to wait for the trial outcome...

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/08/31/witnesses-kenosha-shooting-see-kyle-rittenhouse-shoot-protest-jacob-blake/5675987002/

Thanks! Nice to know what different people have witnessed.

It also tends to confirm there was a kind of collusion between the police and the right-wing vigilantes.

1 minute ago, polpott said:

As you are incapable of  answering as simple a question as "What facts in the video do you disagree with?" I kinda reckon I am.

polpott, you can assemble any given set of 'facts' to arrive at any conclusion you wish to produce.  Here's the recipe: you include the 'facts' which agree with your desired conclusion, you be sure to leave out the 'facts' which would disagree with your desired conclusion, and you slip in some 'facts' which aren't 'facts' at all but you take care to give them the appearance of being actual 'fact.'

 

That's propaganda (which is just a form of deceit) in a nutshell, polpott.  The video you provided is transparently propaganda.  It deliberately contains 'facts', it deliberately omits facts, and it deliberately suggests 'facts' that are not 'facts' in order to present the viewer with a deliberate 'factual' conclusion.

14 minutes ago, polpott said:

I wouldn't vote for either of those either.

 

Best voting for Biden, he will tax the rich not the poor (opposite policy to Trump) and won't go round the world trying to start wars.

Can you name one war Trump has tried to start...didn't think so. Your posts are starting to loose credibility. 

Edited September 2, 20205 yr by Pattaya Spotter

Just now, Pattaya Spotter said:

Can you name one war Trump has started...didn't think so. Your posts are starting to loose any credibility. 

Yours never had any. Consistently tried to wind up N.Korea and China.

1 hour ago, Matzzon said:

Excuse me, Do you really consider that a question that we should take as serious? ????????????????????????

 

On the other hand, sounds like it´s so far gone that it would probably be okay for you if toddlers are carrying a hand grenade to the day care center.

Now you are being silly, There has been numerous deaths by way of guns , whether the shooter was 17 or 18 isnt too important 

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

polpott, you can assemble any given set of 'facts' to arrive at any conclusion you wish to produce.  Here's the recipe: you include the 'facts' which agree with your desired conclusion, you be sure to leave out the 'facts' which would disagree with your desired conclusion, and you slip in some 'facts' which aren't 'facts' at all but you take care to give them the appearance of being actual 'fact.'

 

That's propaganda (which is just a form of deceit) in a nutshell, polpott.  The video you provided is transparently propaganda.  It deliberately contains 'facts', it deliberately omits facts, and it deliberately suggests 'facts' that are not 'facts' in order to present the viewer with a deliberate 'factual' conclusion.

I'll try one last time, which facts in the video weren't actually facts?

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

Yours never had any. Consistently tried to wind up N.Korea and China.

Trump pacified North Korea, kind of made the peace , Trump also stood up to China regards trade .

Hardly either could be considered to be war mongering 

Can I bothered to read 10 pages of gun nuts defending police officers who shoot people 7 times or baby faced killers "protecting" property, no I can't lol.

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I can't believe 7 shots in the back takes place during legitimate arrests.

And am tempted to put trolls that suggest such an event is in any way normal or justified on 'ignore'.

When dealing with armed police show compliance not defiance. Its pretty simple.

11 hours ago, webfact said:

not to urge racial healing after a white officer shot a Black man in the back but to express support for law enforcement in a city rocked by civil unrest.

Since most of the violent riots and attacks on innocent people have nothing to do with race, what would be the point of even trying?

 

The police need to crack down heavily on these insane drug fulled anarchists who want to burn down American civilization and just happen to be using race as a front on this occasion.

 

It was violent criminals during Occupy Wall Street, it was violent criminals during Antifa riots and attacks against Conservatives, and it's violent criminals now during BLM.

 

People need to wake up from this "oh, but they're talking about racism, I don't want to seem racist, best go along with it" <deleted> before it does permanent damage.

20 minutes ago, Nout said:

When dealing with armed police show compliance not defiance. Its pretty simple.

What about armed police show some restrain and not be trigger happy. 7 bullets in the back is a poor excuse for non compliance. 

9 minutes ago, polpott said:

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

polpott, you can assemble any given set of 'facts' to arrive at any conclusion you wish to produce.  Here's the recipe: you include the 'facts' which agree with your desired conclusion, you be sure to leave out the 'facts' which would disagree with your desired conclusion, and you slip in some 'facts' which aren't 'facts' at all but you take care to give them the appearance of being actual 'fact.'

 

That's propaganda (which is just a form of deceit) in a nutshell, polpott.  The video you provided is transparently propaganda.  It deliberately contains 'facts', it deliberately omits facts, and it deliberately suggests 'facts' that are not 'facts' in order to present the viewer with a deliberate 'factual' conclusion.

I'll try one last time, which facts in the video weren't actually facts?

Good, you didn't ask the same question but this time you've asked the right question, polpott.  The 'fact' in the video, which was never directly presented as a 'fact' but only alluded to in the conclusion is that guns kill people.  That is not'fact' but fiction.  People kill people.  And when people decide to kill other people they will use whatever means are available, even common objects, and whatever means are best suited as well.  The UK is a gun free society (unless you're a criminal of course) and they have an epidemic of knifings.

 

Everyone, gun lovers and anti-gun activists alike, abhor slayings.  We're united on that.  But what's the real solution?  In order to answer the question you have to first determine what the real problem is, wouldn't you?  The true problem can be framed by the question: why does someone desire to kill?  If you don't address the root cause of a problem then any solution that fails to address it is guaranteed to fail.  You can experience limited success with a band-aid (wrong) solution but ultimately it can only be temporary.

 

Seeking answers to the true problem, the desire of someone to kill another, would take you down roads that, I'm afraid, society isn't quite ready to take.

51 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Now you are being silly, There has been numerous deaths by way of guns , whether the shooter was 17 or 18 isnt too important 

No not that he is 17 or 18, even if it is very much differens according to the law. However, what´s important is that he have a big rifle with him in public.

But, I didn´t suppose you would understand what was important. It´s also important that he shot people with a weapon he is not allowed to wear in public.

 

You know, if somebody is carrying a weapon like that with them, other people might think that he wants to kill other. Never crossed your mind, I guess.

 

About silly....hmmm Yes, You are the owner of the Dummkopf.

4 hours 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.

After he got in the car and ran them over, if they survived, then the police might have been justified in shooting him...but only if their hearts were pure and they'd never had a racist thought in their life.

Edited September 2, 20205 yr by Pattaya Spotter

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

polpott, you can assemble any given set of 'facts' to arrive at any conclusion you wish to produce.  Here's the recipe: you include the 'facts' which agree with your desired conclusion, you be sure to leave out the 'facts' which would disagree with your desired conclusion, and you slip in some 'facts' which aren't 'facts' at all but you take care to give them the appearance of being actual 'fact.'

 

That's propaganda (which is just a form of deceit) in a nutshell, polpott.  The video you provided is transparently propaganda.  It deliberately contains 'facts', it deliberately omits facts, and it deliberately suggests 'facts' that are not 'facts' in order to present the viewer with a deliberate 'factual' conclusion.

Says the poster who links to the police union, whose job it is to defend police, as being facts.