Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The facts are very simple. If you’re an African American male, you are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police, killed by police, than someone who is white,” Scott said during a press availability in Charleston.

How many more times is it likely that African American males will be involved in violent crimes than the number of times White American males are

Police search black motorists 3x more than white motorists.

For possible reason, see the above stat.

But (!), searches of black motorists don't yield more contraband.

Apparently those odds are acceptable to you as a white boy, put you in blackface and drop you off in Grosse Pointe on a dark and rainy night you will likely change your tune

How many times have blacks been killed by police in Grosse Point? I don't know of any, and our friend google didn't find any either. But it may have happened.

It is more dangerous for anybody, of any color, to be in the streets of Detroit on a dark or rainy night, or any other time, than on the streets of Grosse Pointe.

But that is a different subject than the supposed problem of the police killing blacks because they are black.

[wdmso]

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/90862...d-crime-syndic

A man charged with running a drug syndicate was offered a plea deal in July if he would name Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old Black woman killed by police in her Louisville, Ky. apartment, as a member of his alleged criminal gang, according to the man's attorney.



will we take this with the same Seriousness that some have suggested a that rittenhouse was a lifeguard who cleaned graffiti. it wasn't his gun and basically a good boy and a Patriot to push his self defense argument


yet in kentucky once again the Victim Breonna Taylor is trying to be portrayed as an evil drug dealer to justify the police over her shooting ??

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/90862...d-crime-syndic

A man charged with running a drug syndicate was offered a plea deal in July if he would name Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old Black woman killed by police in her Louisville, Ky. apartment, as a member of his alleged criminal gang, according to the man's attorney.



will we take this with the same Seriousness that some have suggested a that rittenhouse was a lifeguard who cleaned graffiti. it wasn't his gun and basically a good boy and a Patriot to push his self defense argument


yet in kentucky once again the Victim Breonna Taylor is trying to be portrayed as an evil drug dealer to justify the police over her shooting ??

She was black and you know “How many more times is it likely that African American males will be involved“
Everybody knows that and those women........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by spence

You can't carry a firearm in WI at 17 unless you are hunting. A friend gave it to him which could lead to accessory charges. You also can't shoot someone just because they might be about to or are damaging property.

The homicide charges are extremely serious, I don't think a self defense claim is going to fly when you intentionally put yourself in the situation with a weapon. It will be interesting to see if the can conclusively prove what led to the first shooting. Expect his social media activity to get a lot of scrutiny.

His defense should be I'm dumb, immature and listened to too much Trump.

It's a good thing your not a lawyer..



Gun laws in Wisconsin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Location of Wisconsin in the United States
Gun laws in Wisconsin regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Wisconsin.


Contents
1 Summary table
2 Constitutional protection
3 Preemption
4 Concealed carry
5 Open carry
6 Castle Doctrine
7 No duty to inform
8 Guns in vehicles
8.1 Boats
8.2 Aircraft
8.3 Exceptions
9 Buying and selling
10 Title II firearms
11 State parks, fish hatcheries, and wildlife refuges
12 Other laws
13 Firearms and minors
14 School zones
15 Additional Wisconsin laws table
16 References
17 External links
Summary table[edit]
Subject/Law Long guns Handguns Relevant Statutes Notes
Constitutional right to bear arms Yes 1:25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."
State preemption of local restrictions? Yes 66.0409
State permit required to purchase? No No A purchaser is prohibited from receiving a handgun from a FFL dealer until they’ve paid a background check fee and the state DOJ conducts an additional background check (over and above the Federal 4473).
License required for concealed carry? N/A Yes 175.60 Permit is given on a shall-issue basis. Concealed carry of knives (not intended for use as weapons) is legal without a permit.
Campus carry is allowed, but buildings may be exempted if signs forbidding firearms are posted.
License required for open carry? No No 947.01 948.60 66.0409
941.28
29.304
Open carry of loaded handguns and long guns and knives is permitted without a license for adults over 18, or for minors 16 or older when carrying a long gun that doesn't violate WS 941.28.
Owner license required? No No 941.29
Castle Doctrine/Self Defense Statutes Yes 895.62 Immunity from prosecution and civil damages in the home, with conditions and exceptions
939.48 No duty to retreat in the "dwelling" or owned/operated place of business. No deadly force solely to protect property. 3rd party protection. If attack is provoked, self defense may only be used if reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. If attack is provoked deadly force only allowed if all other reasonable means of avoidance exhausted.
940.01 "the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt"
Firearm registration? No No
Assault weapon law? No No
Magazine capacity restrictions? No No
NFA weapons restricted? No No 941.298
941.26
Machine guns allowed, but may not shoot pistol cartridges and may not be possessed aggressively or offensively. Suppressors, SBR, and SBS are allowed if NFA rules followed, otherwise felony.
Background checks required for private sales? No



Since it points to wether or not said minor is not in violation of 941.28, which his rifle does not violate, since it is not a short barreled rifle or sawed off shotgun...



941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1)  In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.
History: 1979 c. 115; 2001 a. 109.
The intent in sub. (1) (d) is that of the fabricator; that the gun is incapable of being fired or not intended to be fired by the possessor is immaterial. State v. Johnson, 171 Wis. 2d 175, 491 N.W.2d 110 (Ct. App. 1992).
“Firearm" means a weapon that acts by force of gunpowder to fire a projectile, regardless of whether it is inoperable due to disassembly. State v. Rardon, 185 Wis. 2d 701, 518 N.W.2d 330 (Ct. App. 1994).



Here is a pretty well put together timeline of videos some of which is shot by a reporter or blogger who was there, you will see the Kyle Rittenhouse was not the aggressor, and in fact was targeted and attacked. In the bag that was thrown at him was a brick...


https://youtu.be/NSU9ZvnudFE

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have seen all this info. If it's all true, you may well be right. At a minimum, once again, this event was more complicated than the leftist mob spun it as. Once again, the left went nuts without having the facts, and once again, looks like they have egg on their faces. They never learn to wait for the facts, they are not capable of waiting for the facts, not if there's political capital to gain.

I get it, cause I am sometimes guilty of it as well, this stuff gets emotional on both sides. When it comes to Constitutionally protected rights though, I get pissed. This whole thing is also making a perfect case that
1. The AR platform is a perfect platform for self protection
2. The need for hi capacity magazines to protect yourself for legal gun owners. Why should we be at a disadvantage, did you see how many people were attacking this kid.

Everyone commenting on this should watch the youtube video which show a very good chronology of the events from right before the first shooting. The only thing it doesn't show is the widely circulated video of the first guy, taunting the patriots, called them the N word, even though there were actually some armed black patriots in the group with Kyle. This guy was highly agitated and it would not surprise me if he was on something too

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Sad you would support him as if it's a 2A . And self defense. Argument

Classics. Blame everyone but the guy who pulled the trigger that's a go to message from conservatives... from the women who got shot in a police raid. They blamed her for her boyfriend, or the boy who police shot in the park they blamed him for playing with a toy gun , the man who told police he had a gun and had a permit to carry , then shot by cop he told. The excuse he shouldn't have had it or he moved to fast
Man jogging shoot by 2 guys in a truck.. excuses he shouldn't have been in the neighborhood or in the construction site ..


Yea but god forbid you say this kid shouldn't have the gun or he shouldn't have been there

Or that shooti g someone in the back 7 times is excessive.. funny how that works

See above you have no idea what your talking about

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

See above you have no idea what your talking about

And you do Ok
PS sounds Like your trying to sell More guns

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

I get it, cause I am sometimes guilty of it as well, this stuff gets emotional on both sides. When it comes to Constitutionally protected rights though, I get pissed. This whole thing is also making a perfect case that
1. The AR platform is a perfect platform for self protection
2. The need for hi capacity magazines to protect yourself for legal gun owners. Why should we be at a disadvantage, did you see how many people were attacking this kid.

Everyone commenting on this should watch the youtube video which show a very good chronology of the events from right before the first shooting. The only thing it doesn't show is the widely circulated video of the first guy, taunting the patriots, called them the N word, even though there were actually some armed black patriots in the group with Kyle. This guy was highly agitated and it would not surprise me if he was on something too

Sure, you get pissed. But you don't riot, or incite others to riot, and then blame someone else for the blood on your hands.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

See above you have no idea what your talking about

But he knows the Narrative, and that's all that matters.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And you do Ok
PS sounds Like your trying to sell More guns

Have you bothered to listen to what the kids lawyer is saying, or the reporter who was standing right there?

This isn't as simple as the Left wants it to be. It's just not.

[Pete F.]

No matter if it is Antifa or Ya'llquida it's a problem

The fetishization of Kyle Rittenhouse by some people on the right is one of the most dangerous, irresponsible actions we have witnessed in a long time.

When we have a full and complete understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding Rittenhouse's killing of two people, it is possible that these facts will demonstrate that Rittenhouse's actions were legally justified and that the entire incident is a tragedy that demonstrates how violence begets violence and the importance of deescalating large-scale conflicts.

It's possible that we will come to find that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't want to kill anyone and the people he shot didn't want to die, but that a series of awful decisions led to two people losing their lives and Rittenhouse having his soul eternally marred—a situation where everyone loses and we realize how precious life is and that we ought to be more careful as a society.

It's also possible that we'll find that Rittenhouse committed either premeditated or straight murder—that he came to Wisconsin with the intent to kill, or that he meant to kill without have a reasonable fear for his own life. Or negligent homicide—that he didn't intend to kill anyone, but was willfully reckless. It's possible that we'll find that he committed manslaughter—that the killings were truly accidental, but not willfully so.

The one thing that should absolutely not be on offer is the glamorization of Rittenhouse as a positive example of sound decisions leading to a good outcome.

And yet, here we are.

If this has you depressed about the near-term future of America, I'm not here to help.

Consider this long essay by David Kilkullen looking at the rise of both right-wing and left-wing militias and the ways in which the two groups have been preparing for open conflict:

There were already many militias of varying political complexions across America — one pro-militia website lists 361 groups across all 50 states. Membership surged after the 2008 financial crisis, then accelerated as thugs from both political extremes fought each other with baseball bats, ¬bicycle chains and pepper spray in the streets of Washington, DC, Seattle, Portland and Detroit. The deadly “Unite the Right” rally in the normally sleepy university town of Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017 brought the danger home to many Americans, but the trend was longstanding. . . .
Far-left militias such as Redneck Revolt and the John Brown Gun Club emerged, copying the methods and military-style weapons of right-wing militias while opposing their politics. Both far-right and far-left armed groups were at Charlottesville, with ¬cadres of gun-carrying militants guarding protesters on both sides and a third-party “constitutionalist” militia, the Oath Keepers — composed mainly of military and law-enforcement veterans — standing by as self-appointed umpires.
In the west, a separate rural militia movement had already coalesced around “sovereign citizen” groups that rejected federal authority. Despite media portrayals of its leaders as racially motivated, in fact the sovereign citizen ideology is neither left nor right in a traditional sense — it might better be described as a form of militant libertarianism with roots in the self-reliant cowboy culture of the old west. . . .

[D]uring the 2016 election campaign, ¬Arizona militias mounted armed patrols to support his border wall. In response, Redneck Revolt held a heavily armed show of force in Phoenix, Arizona, later posting a YouTube video showing members shooting semiautomatic rifles at targets displaying alt-right symbols. A few months later, Antifa convened an “anti-colonial anti-fascist community defence gathering” near Flagstaff, Arizona, that included weapons training and coaching in anti-police tactics. Today, far-left and far-right groups operate within close striking distance of each other in several border states and in “contested zones” including the Pacific Northwest, parts of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Carolinas. . . .

The pandemic — and the grievances inspired by heavy-handed responses to it — have brought these tensions to a head. Camouflage-clad militia sporting semiautomatic rifles and body ¬armour and riding in military-¬surplus trucks joined an armed protest against the governor of Pennsylvania in April. Similar protests took place in Ohio and North Dakota. A week later demonstrators, some carrying AK-47 rifles, swarmed into the state ¬capital in Lansing, Michigan, to confront politicians.
A racial edge also emerged: a week after the Lansing incident a group of African-Americans, armed with AR-15 rifles and automatic pistols, mounted a show of force outside the Michigan State Capitol building to support a black member of the legislature. Class inequities, which track closely with racial disparities here, have prompted socialist groups — notably Antifa but also traditionally nonviolent Trotskyist and anarchist networks — to arm themselves for an incipient revolutionary moment.

So . . . not great, Bob.

Kilcullen suggests that what's at the root of everything here isn't hatred, but fear:

One reason for the overemphasis on right-wing extremism, I believe, is that analysts often mis¬characterise armed actors as “hate groups”. It is absolutely true that the intense hatred from right-wing extremists dwarfs most other groups. But the focus on hate is a misunderstanding of what drives violence in internal conflicts.
As Stathis Kalyvas demonstrated a decade ago in The Logic of Violence in Civil War, the worst atrocities are driven not by hate but by fear. Fear of other groups, encroachment of those groups into one’s territory and collapse of confidence in government’s ability to impartially keep the peace are the key factors that provoke communal violence. Hate follows and rationalises fear, not the other way around. And fear of the coronavirus, alongside the demonstrable inability of government to keep people safe, is driving today’s growth in armed militancy.

But now we get to the really depressing stuff:

To me, current conditions feel disturbingly similar to things I have seen in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Colombia. Indeed, the theory of guerrilla and unconventional warfare fits today’s situation all too well.
If we visualise an armed movement as a pyramid, then the thousands of protesters on the street (and the tens of thousands who support and sympathise with them but stay home) represent the mass base. A smaller group of organisers and support networks (physical and virtual) plays an auxiliary role further up the pyramid. The armed, gun-toting element is smaller still, but higher in skill, weaponry, organisation and motivation. It’s worth remembering that almost three million Americans served in Iraq and Afghanistan, coming home familiar with urban and rural guerrilla warfare to a country where 41 per cent of people own a gun or live with someone who does.

Here is the thing: One of the boring, hypocritical norms of elite politics over the last 50 years has been the insistence at the top of the political world of going through rote condemnations of bad actors and rote paying of respects to victims of violence. Even if you suspected that the people doing the condemning or paying the respects didn't really care.

Donald Trump broke that norm. He knows that a lot of the people who showed up at Charlottesville and in Lansing are his voters, and he's always going to be loyal to his people. So he refuses to condemn them. And Trump never actually gave a crap about John Lewis or anything John Lewis stood for, so he skipped Lewis's funeral.

Whatever else you want to say about it, this is honesty, of a sort.

But it turns out that those boring, rote, hypocritical norms are pretty important. It's important when George W. Bush comes out and vouches for Islam as a religion of peace. It's important when Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and Bernie Sanders stand shoulder to shoulder with Steve Scalice.

I happen to think that all four of those people meant what they said, but the point is that it doesn't especially matter whether or not they meant it in their heart of hearts. The fact that they understood they had a duty to say the words meant something.

Because that's how you cut down on the numbers of people in those extremist bases and keep the pyramids of civil conflict to a smaller, less-deadly size.

All of these norms and traditions have (had?) very real functions in society. And as Donald Trump and his enablers break them, we all pay the price.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No matter if it is Antifa or Ya'llquida it's a problem

The fetishization of Kyle Rittenhouse by some people on the right is one of the most dangerous, irresponsible actions we have witnessed in a long time.

When we have a full and complete understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding Rittenhouse's killing of two people, it is possible that these facts will demonstrate that Rittenhouse's actions were legally justified and that the entire incident is a tragedy that demonstrates how violence begets violence and the importance of deescalating large-scale conflicts.

It's possible that we will come to find that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't want to kill anyone and the people he shot didn't want to die, but that a series of awful decisions led to two people losing their lives and Rittenhouse having his soul eternally marred—a situation where everyone loses and we realize how precious life is and that we ought to be more careful as a society.

It's also possible that we'll find that Rittenhouse committed either premeditated or straight murder—that he came to Wisconsin with the intent to kill, or that he meant to kill without have a reasonable fear for his own life. Or negligent homicide—that he didn't intend to kill anyone, but was willfully reckless. It's possible that we'll find that he committed manslaughter—that the killings were truly accidental, but not willfully so.

The one thing that should absolutely not be on offer is the glamorization of Rittenhouse as a positive example of sound decisions leading to a good outcome.

And yet, here we are.

If this has you depressed about the near-term future of America, I'm not here to help.

Consider this long essay by David Kilkullen looking at the rise of both right-wing and left-wing militias and the ways in which the two groups have been preparing for open conflict:

There were already many militias of varying political complexions across America — one pro-militia website lists 361 groups across all 50 states. Membership surged after the 2008 financial crisis, then accelerated as thugs from both political extremes fought each other with baseball bats, ¬bicycle chains and pepper spray in the streets of Washington, DC, Seattle, Portland and Detroit. The deadly “Unite the Right” rally in the normally sleepy university town of Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017 brought the danger home to many Americans, but the trend was longstanding. . . .
Far-left militias such as Redneck Revolt and the John Brown Gun Club emerged, copying the methods and military-style weapons of right-wing militias while opposing their politics. Both far-right and far-left armed groups were at Charlottesville, with ¬cadres of gun-carrying militants guarding protesters on both sides and a third-party “constitutionalist” militia, the Oath Keepers — composed mainly of military and law-enforcement veterans — standing by as self-appointed umpires.
In the west, a separate rural militia movement had already coalesced around “sovereign citizen” groups that rejected federal authority. Despite media portrayals of its leaders as racially motivated, in fact the sovereign citizen ideology is neither left nor right in a traditional sense — it might better be described as a form of militant libertarianism with roots in the self-reliant cowboy culture of the old west. . . .

[D]uring the 2016 election campaign, ¬Arizona militias mounted armed patrols to support his border wall. In response, Redneck Revolt held a heavily armed show of force in Phoenix, Arizona, later posting a YouTube video showing members shooting semiautomatic rifles at targets displaying alt-right symbols. A few months later, Antifa convened an “anti-colonial anti-fascist community defence gathering” near Flagstaff, Arizona, that included weapons training and coaching in anti-police tactics. Today, far-left and far-right groups operate within close striking distance of each other in several border states and in “contested zones” including the Pacific Northwest, parts of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Carolinas. . . .

The pandemic — and the grievances inspired by heavy-handed responses to it — have brought these tensions to a head. Camouflage-clad militia sporting semiautomatic rifles and body ¬armour and riding in military-¬surplus trucks joined an armed protest against the governor of Pennsylvania in April. Similar protests took place in Ohio and North Dakota. A week later demonstrators, some carrying AK-47 rifles, swarmed into the state ¬capital in Lansing, Michigan, to confront politicians.
A racial edge also emerged: a week after the Lansing incident a group of African-Americans, armed with AR-15 rifles and automatic pistols, mounted a show of force outside the Michigan State Capitol building to support a black member of the legislature. Class inequities, which track closely with racial disparities here, have prompted socialist groups — notably Antifa but also traditionally nonviolent Trotskyist and anarchist networks — to arm themselves for an incipient revolutionary moment.

So . . . not great, Bob.

Kilcullen suggests that what's at the root of everything here isn't hatred, but fear:

One reason for the overemphasis on right-wing extremism, I believe, is that analysts often mis¬characterise armed actors as “hate groups”. It is absolutely true that the intense hatred from right-wing extremists dwarfs most other groups. But the focus on hate is a misunderstanding of what drives violence in internal conflicts.
As Stathis Kalyvas demonstrated a decade ago in The Logic of Violence in Civil War, the worst atrocities are driven not by hate but by fear. Fear of other groups, encroachment of those groups into one’s territory and collapse of confidence in government’s ability to impartially keep the peace are the key factors that provoke communal violence. Hate follows and rationalises fear, not the other way around. And fear of the coronavirus, alongside the demonstrable inability of government to keep people safe, is driving today’s growth in armed militancy.

But now we get to the really depressing stuff:

To me, current conditions feel disturbingly similar to things I have seen in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Colombia. Indeed, the theory of guerrilla and unconventional warfare fits today’s situation all too well.
If we visualise an armed movement as a pyramid, then the thousands of protesters on the street (and the tens of thousands who support and sympathise with them but stay home) represent the mass base. A smaller group of organisers and support networks (physical and virtual) plays an auxiliary role further up the pyramid. The armed, gun-toting element is smaller still, but higher in skill, weaponry, organisation and motivation. It’s worth remembering that almost three million Americans served in Iraq and Afghanistan, coming home familiar with urban and rural guerrilla warfare to a country where 41 per cent of people own a gun or live with someone who does.

Here is the thing: One of the boring, hypocritical norms of elite politics over the last 50 years has been the insistence at the top of the political world of going through rote condemnations of bad actors and rote paying of respects to victims of violence. Even if you suspected that the people doing the condemning or paying the respects didn't really care.

Donald Trump broke that norm. He knows that a lot of the people who showed up at Charlottesville and in Lansing are his voters, and he's always going to be loyal to his people. So he refuses to condemn them. And Trump never actually gave a crap about John Lewis or anything John Lewis stood for, so he skipped Lewis's funeral.

Whatever else you want to say about it, this is honesty, of a sort.

But it turns out that those boring, rote, hypocritical norms are pretty important. It's important when George W. Bush comes out and vouches for Islam as a religion of peace. It's important when Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and Bernie Sanders stand shoulder to shoulder with Steve Scalice.

I happen to think that all four of those people meant what they said, but the point is that it doesn't especially matter whether or not they meant it in their heart of hearts. The fact that they understood they had a duty to say the words meant something.

Because that's how you cut down on the numbers of people in those extremist bases and keep the pyramids of civil conflict to a smaller, less-deadly size.

All of these norms and traditions have (had?) very real functions in society. And as Donald Trump and his enablers break them, we all pay the price.

"The fetishization of Kyle Rittenhouse

How about a fetish for due process, and for the presumption of innocence?

"The fetishization of Kyle Rittenhouse by some people on the right is one of the most dangerous"

As opposed to the non-existent danger posed by those willing to riot every single time a black person is killed, before the facts are known. No danger there.

WHo is doing the damage here, Pete? Liberals or conservatives?

[Pete F.]

Hopefully you’re well armed Jim, so when this fool in the White House starts the war to get re-elected you can defend yourself.
When I said months ago that he’d start a war to get re-elected, I didn’t imagine that it would be in this country.
Here’s the part you failed to read, sorry if they’re not small words
Here is the thing: One of the boring, hypocritical norms of elite politics over the last 50 years has been the insistence at the top of the political world of going through rote condemnations of bad actors and rote paying of respects to victims of violence. Even if you suspected that the people doing the condemning or paying the respects didn't really care.

Donald Trump broke that norm. He knows that a lot of the people who showed up at Charlottesville and in Lansing are his voters, and he's always going to be loyal to his people. So he refuses to condemn them. And Trump never actually gave a crap about John Lewis or anything John Lewis stood for, so he skipped Lewis's funeral.

Whatever else you want to say about it, this is honesty, of a sort.

But it turns out that those boring, rote, hypocritical norms are pretty important. It's important when George W. Bush comes out and vouches for Islam as a religion of peace. It's important when Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and Bernie Sanders stand shoulder to shoulder with Steve Scalice.

I happen to think that all four of those people meant what they said, but the point is that it doesn't especially matter whether or not they meant it in their heart of hearts. The fact that they understood they had a duty to say the words meant something.

Because that's how you cut down on the numbers of people in those extremist bases and keep the pyramids of civil conflict to a smaller, less-deadly size.

All of these norms and traditions have (had?) very real functions in society. And as Donald Trump and his enablers break them, we all pay the price.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hopefully you’re well armed Jim, so when this fool in the White House starts the war to get re-elected you can defend yourself.
When I said months ago that he’d start a war to get re-elected, I didn’t imagine that it would be in this country.
Here’s the part you failed to read, sorry if they’re not small words
Here is the thing: One of the boring, hypocritical norms of elite politics over the last 50 years has been the insistence at the top of the political world of going through rote condemnations of bad actors and rote paying of respects to victims of violence. Even if you suspected that the people doing the condemning or paying the respects didn't really care.

Donald Trump broke that norm. He knows that a lot of the people who showed up at Charlottesville and in Lansing are his voters, and he's always going to be loyal to his people. So he refuses to condemn them. And Trump never actually gave a crap about John Lewis or anything John Lewis stood for, so he skipped Lewis's funeral.

Whatever else you want to say about it, this is honesty, of a sort.

But it turns out that those boring, rote, hypocritical norms are pretty important. It's important when George W. Bush comes out and vouches for Islam as a religion of peace. It's important when Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and Bernie Sanders stand shoulder to shoulder with Steve Scalice.

I happen to think that all four of those people meant what they said, but the point is that it doesn't especially matter whether or not they meant it in their heart of hearts. The fact that they understood they had a duty to say the words meant something.

Because that's how you cut down on the numbers of people in those extremist bases and keep the pyramids of civil conflict to a smaller, less-deadly size.

All of these norms and traditions have (had?) very real functions in society. And as Donald Trump and his enablers break them, we all pay the price.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Hopefully you’re well armed Jim, so when this fool in the White House starts the war to get re-elected you can defend yourself."

Defend myself against whom, exactly? People who don't want Trump to win? Because that's where I see the threat. Clearly from the left. Not the right.

I have little kids, and so I choose not to keep firearms in my house. It's liberal idiots who take their cues from race baiters, who make me want to arm up. Not conservatives.

Who would you rather be marching past your house, Pete? Todays BLM, or ANTIFA, or the Tea Party? You go ahead and say with a straight face you wouldn't want the Tea Party.

How has Trump started this? It's all a left wing reaction, to a wildly distorted (distorted by the left) threat from police. How is this on Trump, exactly? How do you connect those dots to Trump?

"he refuses to condemn them"

How many times does he have to condemn white supremacists, before it sinks in that he condemned them? WHats the number?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Donald Trump broke that norm. He knows that a lot of the people who showed up at Charlottesville and in Lansing are his voters, and he's always going to be loyal to his people. So he refuses to condemn them. And Trump never actually gave a crap about John Lewis or anything John Lewis stood for, so he skipped Lewis's funeral.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just don't know what planet you live on. Here on Earth, there is a left wing magazine called TIME. Here is a TIME magazine article with a transcript of Trumps comments about Charlottesville...

“racism is evil”

"this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America."

"unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence."
the KKK, neo Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

"Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America"

That's from his transcript of his remarks following Charlottesville.

What more of a condemnation would you like? What does he have to say, before people like you will stop saying he didn't condemn the racists? How can you claim he didn't condemn those people? Where the hell do you get your news from?

How do you look at yourself in the mirror? How are you any different from the right-wing idiots who still claim Obama wasn't born here?

BITCH SLAPPED.

https://time.com/4899813/donald-trum...ks-transcript/

[detbuch]

Actually, at Charlottesville, Trump said there were very fine people on both sides. That was a normative, unifying statement.

And those who call for Trump to be a hypocrite and spout those "boring, rote, hypocritical norms" are reluctant to do the same when it comes to their comments on Trump or his supporters or "the right wing."

John Lewis, as well as other Democrats, didn't do the "boring, rote, hypocritical" norm of attending Trump's inauguration. Obama didn't follow the "boring, rote, hypocritical" tradition of not negatively commenting on his succesor's administration.

I suspect, no, I believe that Trump would be more hypocritically "normal" in his comments about his opponents if they would have the grace to do so about him as well.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Have you bothered to listen to what the kids lawyer is saying, or the reporter who was standing right there?

This isn't as simple as the Left wants it to be. It's just not.

I saw the reporter from the dallycaller on tucker Carlson funny Tucker never told his audience that he was the guys BOSS? And he wasn't to clear what happened until he watched the film .. saying I didn't know I was that close. being in the moment and watching it are not they same .


Jim that's what lawyers get paid to do present their clients in the best light.. seems you and the specialists are taking what they are says as the only actual facts

The videos only show 1 part of the overall event , you forget there are eye witnesses
And other evidence none of us have seen

I still dont understand if you pick a fight and you get scared or start loosing said fight

Then it becomes self defense ... so jim are you suggesting there are 3 separate self defense claims .. or do all 3 shooting s = 1 self defense claim

[Pete F.]

[Pete F.]

[Got Stripers]

Gee let me just ask a stupid question, if you go into a highly volatile situation like that armed with an AR or for that matter any long rifle, aren’t you putting yourself into harms way and asking for trouble. I still don’t condone these f*ck heads playing right into a Trumps campaign playbook buy destroying property, but if you go looking for trouble your probably going to find it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

how about commenting on your demonstrably false accusation, that trump didn’t condemn violent racists? are you willing to take that back?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Gee let me just ask a stupid question, if you go into a highly volatile situation like that armed with an AR or for that matter any long rifle, aren’t you putting yourself into harms way and asking for trouble. I still don’t condone these f*ck heads playing right into a Trumps campaign playbook buy destroying property, but if you go looking for trouble your probably going to find it.

very poor judgement in putting himself there, no question. doesn’t mean he didn’t have a reasonable reason to fear for his life in that moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

very poor judgement in putting himself there, no question. doesn’t mean he didn’t have a reasonable reason to fear for his life in that moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim why aren't the protesters given that same leeway

Do they no also have a reasonable reason to fear for their life in that moment. When a lone guy shows up with an AR15. Who is not aw enforcement , and kills someone?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim why aren't the protesters given that same leeway

Do they no also have a reasonable reason to fear for their life in that moment. When a lone guy shows up with an AR15. Who is not aw enforcement , and kills someone?

the rioters are breaking the law. obviously. anger isn’t justification for hurting someone or destroying property. that’s why.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Poor judgement isn’t illegal.

I think he was a dumbass for going, but he had as much right to be there as the protesters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim why aren't the protesters given that same leeway

Do they no also have a reasonable reason to fear for their life in that moment. When a lone guy shows up with an AR15. Who is not aw enforcement , and kills someone?

if it’s an open carry state ( i don’t know if it is), then seeing a guy with a gun isn’t cause to fear for your
life. not unless he was threatening them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Poor judgement isn’t illegal.

I think he was a dumbass for going, but he had as much right to be there as the protesters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as the other dumbasses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

as the other dumbasses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unfortunately, there are no shortage of dumbasses in the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the rioters are breaking the law. obviously. anger isn’t justification for hurting someone or destroying property. that’s why.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so protesters or rioters. cant reasonably have a reason to fear for their life in that moment. From a guy with a Gun. Because they may or may not be breaking the law. And the guy with the gun was there to bring order so hes cool?.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

so protesters or rioters. cant reasonably have a reason to fear for their life in that moment. From a guy with a Gun. Because they may or may not be breaking the law. And the guy with the gun was there to bring order so hes cool?.

are they saying they attacked rittenhouse in self defense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device