A Warning to Rioters and Antifa Members Threatening to Come

[el3so]

In both the original police brutality (...) incident

Wow, I didn't even know there was another incident involving a person of colour in the same city where this happened (Blake shooting), I thought it all was tied to the George Floyd protests.
Seems to make the decision to allow armed citizens to break a curfew even more reckless.

[ReptilianKittenEater]

^ Right. You get your bicep blown off by an adolescent carrying an illegal AR and raised by idiots and you're real happy about that.

You must be fun at parties.

Those modern day heroes maybe figure if they hit someone in the arm (leg, shoulder etc) with a large calibre weapon it will be like is on tv, where the injury is shrugged off. Rather than in real life where there is a good chance the arm won't work again.

[Tarkan]

^ Right. You get your bicep blown off by an adolescent carrying an illegal AR and raised by idiots and you're real happy about that.

You must be fun at parties.

I'm guessing el3so doesn't run around rioting and committing arson before diverting to assault well armed adolescents prior to threatening to kill them, so he's probably safe from getting his bicep blown off.

The left keeps wanting to spin Rittenhouse's assailants as heroes.

Yet, Rittenhouse was the one protecting his community (his dad and grandparents lived in Kenosha, he lived 20 minutes away with his mom) - not by shooting rioters, but by offering medical aid and putting out fires set by rioters since the city "leaders" had absolutely abrogated their responsibility to the community. It was after putting out the fire that Rittenhouse was chase by Rosenbaum, who had previously threatened - quite energetically - that he was going to kill Rittenhouse.

You can say it was stupid for Rittenhouse to be there, and maybe it was.

But it wasn't illegal.

Nor was it illegal for him to be armed.

It was illegal for Rosenbaum to attack him, for Huber to assault him with a deadly weapon (two strikes to head / neck region with skateboard), and for G.G. to attempt to assassinate Rittenhouse after pretending to surrender. All 3 of the people that Rittenhouse shot were criminals, ranging from multiple rapes of young boys (Rosenbaum), to wife beating (Huber), to relatively minor shit (G.G. - misdemeanors). The black guy that kicked Rittenhouse in the head when he was down on the ground - who Rittenhouse shot at but missed - also a criminal. This was literally about as clear cut as it gets - if you don't have a right to defend yourself against criminals assaulting you with deadly intent, then you don't have a right to defend yourself - which is apparently what the left is agitating for. They can attack you - that's legalish (at least if a Soros candidate is DA), but woe be to the man, woman, or child who was the temerity to raise a hand against their left-wing oppressors.

Somehow Rittenhouse is the bad guy in all this for folks on the left. He should have just let the "protesters" riot for racial justice by setting businesses on fire and looting shit. Nothing says racial justice like free Air Jordans. He should have just let Rosenbaum take the gun from him and kill him like he said he was going to do. That about right sparrow?

[rickshaw92]

With a not guilty verdict I cant help but think its a shame he diddnt shoot more of the cunts.

[snaark]

But it wasn't illegal.

He was acquitted, so by definition it wasn't illegal. But by any normal measures, child vigilantes with assault rifles is not a collection of words that one would normally associate with a functioning democracy. Alarm bells should be ringing.

[Kurt]

With a not guilty verdict I cant help but think its a shame he diddnt shoot more of the cunts.

Id be one of those cunts.

I deserve to die for what again?

[Kurt]

The moment the Judge dropped the illegal weapons charge the Jury had to aquit him
If Id been on the Jury I would have aquitted him too.

People forget that you gotta follow the courts instructions for the descision. If not, like "Jury nulification" fantacists forget to mention, a juror can be held in contempt.

In Wisconsin you can only hunt in city limits in the city of Marshfield and only with a bow. Minors cannot possess weapons outside of deer or small game season. Armed vigilantes are illegal in Wisconsin so his convictioned hinged on the weapons violation. Once that was tossed out he was free.

I bet if G.G had shot and killed him the view of Rittenhouse would be a lot different because a 17 year old there illegally with an illegal gun who had just killed 2 people would have been viewed as an active shooter.

[seektravelinfo]

With a not guilty verdict I cant help but think its a shame he diddnt shoot more of the cunts.

Id be one of those cunts.

I deserve to die for what again?

Yeah, Mike. Me too. I’d be one of those cunts. I’m harmless, though I’d still be one of those cunts. Now emboldened, the radicals who pose and trot around with their weapons will move on to their next phase which will be targeted assassinations, kidnappings and executions. They’re jazzed for a civil war and the threat is real. It’s not a new threat, it’s a reawakened threat and it’s as American as apple pie. Is it worth it for you for one of us to take a kill shot?

[Tarkan]

But it wasn't illegal.

He was acquitted, so by definition it wasn't illegal. But by any normal measures, child vigilantes with assault rifles is not a collection of words that one would normally associate with a functioning democracy. Alarm bells should be ringing.

There are about 5 different fallacies wrapped up in your 2nd sentence.

First, our democracy flourished for a good 150 years before police forces were a common thing. Justice and suppression of crime was often done by "vigilantes". Some injustice was also done by them as well. But then again, the same can be said about modern police, no?

And yes, it's alarming that Rittenhouse and a lot of other people felt compelled to go defend businesses and property because the people running the state of Wisconsin and the city of Kenosha had decided that letting rioters destroy private property and endanger lives was better optics than protecting private property and lives. That's not a Rittenhouse failure, and so punishing Rittenhouse - which reflexively the left wants to do (even after the acquittal - people like Nadler are trying to get the DOJ to go after him for civil rights violations) - is more about punishing those who embarrass the state rather than punishing Rittenhouse for crimes he committed. Because he committed no crimes.

The shooting he engaged in was not vigilante shooting. It was self-defense shooting. He wasn't trying to enforce the law, he was trying not to get killed. It's a point of distinction that needs to be pointed out. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking rioters. He wasn't threatening rioters. He didn't interfere with peoples' right to protest. He did defend himself when he was violently attacked.

[Tarkan]

With a not guilty verdict I cant help but think its a shame he diddnt shoot more of the cunts.

Id be one of those cunts.

I deserve to die for what again?

Yeah, Mike. Me too. I’d be one of those cunts. I’m harmless, though I’d still be one of those cunts. Now emboldened, the radicals who pose and trot around with their weapons will move on to their next phase which will be targeted assassinations, kidnappings and executions. They’re jazzed for a civil war and the threat is real. It’s not a new threat, it’s a reawakened threat and it’s as American as apple pie. Is it worth it for you for one of us to take a kill shot?

I'm curious if you think that Grosswitz or Ziminski were radicals, since they were armed and trotting around with their weapons. Ziminksi actually fired his several times (and fired his gun before Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum). Grosswitz tried to draw to shoot Rittenhouse. Or is it necessary for you to disagree with their ideology for them to be radicals and otherwise carrying weapons is ok if it's the left.

Now, let's talk about targeted assassinations.

Remember this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressi ... l_shooting

I do. The shooter was...a leftwing zealot.

How about this one: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fa ... d-n1238867
You know, where Michael Forest Reinoehl targeted and assassinated Aaron Danielson on the street in Portland after a protest? Guess what, Reinhoehl was Antifa, not some right wing zealot.

Or what about Willem Van Spronsen, who attacked the ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Washington?

Or Micah Xavier Johnson who ambushed and killed 5 Dallas cops at a BLM protest?

The left has been targeting the right for assassinations for a while now. But you are worried that a self-defense acquittal will embolden the right. Uh-huh. More likely, it will trigger your deranged left wing friends to go try to assassinate more "fascists".

[Tarkan]

The moment the Judge dropped the illegal weapons charge the Jury had to aquit him

The "illegal weapons charge" was a misdemeanor. It had literally zero bearing on whether or not he engaged in lawful self-defense. You don't lose your right to self-defense when you commit a possession misdemeanor (which was literally a minor in illegal possession even though he was being tried...as an adult).

[Kurt]

The moment the Judge dropped the illegal weapons charge the Jury had to aquit him

The "illegal weapons charge" was a misdemeanor. It had literally zero bearing on whether or not he engaged in lawful self-defense. You don't lose your right to self-defense when you commit a possession misdemeanor (which was literally a minor in illegal possession even though he was being tried...as an adult).

Had everything to do with the prosecutions case of first degree murder. Prosecution is a ladder. You gotta go up rungs. First rung is presence, second run is if the presence is lawful. Dismissed firearms charge would assume the presence was lawful so the prosecution had no case other than to try to prove someone who was lawfully or not illegally present with legal or not illegal firearms premeditated a homicide.
Like I said, if I had been on the jury I would have followed the judges instructions and voted not guilty too.

Not guilty has never meant "innocent".

[Kurt]

With a not guilty verdict I cant help but think its a shame he diddnt shoot more of the cunts.

Id be one of those cunts.

I deserve to die for what again?

Yeah, Mike. Me too. I’d be one of those cunts. I’m harmless, though I’d still be one of those cunts. Now emboldened, the radicals who pose and trot around with their weapons will move on to their next phase which will be targeted assassinations, kidnappings and executions. They’re jazzed for a civil war and the threat is real. It’s not a new threat, it’s a reawakened threat and it’s as American as apple pie. Is it worth it for you for one of us to take a kill shot?

I'm curious if you think that Grosswitz or Ziminski were radicals, since they were armed and trotting around with their weapons. Ziminksi actually fired his several times (and fired his gun before Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum). Grosswitz tried to draw to shoot Rittenhouse. Or is it necessary for you to disagree with their ideology for them to be radicals and otherwise carrying weapons is ok if it's the left.

Now, let's talk about targeted assassinations.

Remember this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressi ... l_shooting

I do. The shooter was...a leftwing zealot.

How about this one: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fa ... d-n1238867
You know, where Michael Forest Reinoehl targeted and assassinated Aaron Danielson on the street in Portland after a protest? Guess what, Reinhoehl was Antifa, not some right wing zealot.

Or what about Willem Van Spronsen, who attacked the ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Washington?

Or Micah Xavier Johnson who ambushed and killed 5 Dallas cops at a BLM protest?

The left has been targeting the right for assassinations for a while now. But you are worried that a self-defense acquittal will embolden the right. Uh-huh. More likely, it will trigger your deranged left wing friends to go try to assassinate more "fascists".

Never supported any of those people. But if I ever see someone with an AR who just shot people I would try to disarm them unless they identified themselves as cops.

So I would deserve to die.

I also would and have been a BLM protester. Largest movement in the USA so mist who are out on the street are not armed.

At what point do Seeks and I deserve to die? For protesting? For trying to subdue a shooter?
When?

[Tarkan]

Never supported any of those people. But if I ever see someone with an AR who just shot people I would try to disarm them unless they identified themselves as cops.

So I would deserve to die.

So, you would try to stop Rittenhouse, who was fleeing towards the cops (and eventually made it there and attempted to turn himself in), from...shooting more people? Turning himself in to the cops?

I'm not saying you would deserve to die, but it's awfully risky to inject yourself into a lethal force encounter with a healthy helping of mob violence. Worst case scenario you get lawfully deaded. Second worst case scenario is you get unlawfully deaded. But pretty close to those scenarios is where you help an innocent boy get caught and murdered by the mob.

I also would and have been a BLM protester. Largest movement in the USA so mist who are out on the street are not armed.

At what point do Seeks and I deserve to die? For protesting? For trying to subdue a shooter?
When?

Protesting, no.

Property owners should be allowed to use force to protect their property. Destroying property transforms a protest into a riot, and the rules change a bit in a riot.

Arson, yeah, lethal force is legal against arsonists setting fire to an inhabited structure in most areas in the US (not legal advice btw).

Aggravated assault engaged in mob violence? The victim has a right to defend themselves with lethal force. Doesn't matter if you misunderstood the situation and thought you were acting in good faith.

[ROB]

3 guys are dead and you halfwits are arguing over which side was in the right.

Peak usa. What a fucking shit hole.