Police shooting black man in the back ... again (Kenosha, WI)

#2,878
#2,878
FLVOL_79 said:
That was one of the greatest examples of the left wing media jumping to a conclusion based on racially stereotyped names and watching it blow up in their face like a vigorously shaken Arizona iced sweet tea.
Click to expand...
They still switched it to being white Latino ..... whatever that is
 
  • Like
Reactions: sierraorange, Rickyvol77, BigOrangeD and 1 other person
#2,879
#2,879
FLVOL_79 said:
That was one of the greatest examples of the left wing media jumping to a conclusion based on racially stereotyped names and watching it blow up in their face like a vigorously shaken Arizona iced sweet tea.
Click to expand...
Or Hillary on her jet talking about a shooting in Charlotte.... that as white people we need to do better..... there wasn’t a person involved at all lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#2,886
#2,886
RockyTop85 said:
I’m not saying he actually did leave or that they mistook someone else for him. Clearly he was there during the relevant portions and he’s the one that got shot. The relevance of those exchanges is that their expectations going in give a sense of how much work they needed to do to re-orient to the situation before justifiably engaging in the struggle that ends up with the shots. It’s the same concept as whether they knew he had a warrant. You may have understood that, but I wasn’t sure it was clear.

Anyways, I’m not sold that shooting him was morally justifiable, but it’s at least a close call and the facts that make it a close call in that moment aren’t really the fault of the police. So the clearest “room for improvement,” if any, would be almost entirely in those first few moments.

In that sense, I think it’s more the anticipation or expectation of the struggle than the enjoyment of it that causes problems.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I felt like I had a decent grasp of why you felt it important, and agree with the importance of that idea. And the more good info the cops have before they arrive the better. We have the advantage of looking back eventually with the final facts they don't always have when deciding what to do in a matter of seconds sometimes.
Not that it couldn't happen, but its less likely that situation gets to that point that quick without the previous warrant present.

In a perfect world he doesn't resist and no one is forced to make a difficult decision. After that you are asking the police to make all the right moves to detain him without a bad ending, because the person being detained is no longer interested in doing that on their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, MemphisVol77 and RockyTop85
#2,887
#2,887
#2,889
#2,889
Shower thoughts: what are the odds the Russians put out the call for people to go defend Kenosha? Seems pretty consistent with what they did in 2016; also seems pretty consistent with the people who showed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyler Durden and Mick
#2,890
#2,890
BeardedVol said:
Well I guess when you find an account of the car lot owner "asking" Rittenhouse's militia to provide armed security, let us know. I've not seen it reported as such, and it's not in the official criminal complaint against Rittenhouse.
https://www.mystateline.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/08/Rittenhouse.pdf
Click to expand...
All it takes is for him or her to tell detectives and/or the defense and sign an affidavit. I'm just mentioning that it can still apply. Not that it's the facts of the case.
 
#2,892
#2,892
utvols88 said:
All it takes is for him or her to tell detectives and/or the defense and sign an affidavit. I'm just mentioning that it can still apply. Not that it's the facts of the case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd say the likelihood that the car lot owner hired an uninsured entity from made up of Facebook group members to provide armed security is closer to zero than any other number, but sure it's a theory I guess. One without any corroborating evidence, but still a theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#2,893
#2,893
BeardedVol said:
Yeah, I'd say the likelihood that the car lot owner hired an uninsured entity from made up of Facebook group members to provide armed security is closer to zero than any other number, but sure it's a theory I guess. One without any corroborating evidence, but still a theory.
Click to expand...
You just said it didn't apply. I stated how it could. That's all. I'm not saying that's the case. But regardless of that he had reasonable belief he was in danger to at least bodily harm. So it'll be a weapons charge and that's it. As it should be.

Fwiw I also think the parents need to look themselves in the mirror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and allvol123
#2,894
#2,894
allvol123 said:
@ClearwaterVol cheers on child rape and is troubled by free market economies. He is a great guy.
Click to expand...

My comment was mocking someone that celebrated the death of two Americans. Yeah, I am the bad guy.

You Trump fanboys just cannot ever get an opposing viewpoint correct. You love to make up arguments. I am all for a free market economy, but it doesn't solve all ills and rules and regulations are required. If you are speaking about my condemnation of people that boycott an American company solely because of a differing political viewpoint... It is allowed. The president should not be leading that charge and I believe that anyone that does so is decidedly unpatriotic and an a$$hole, but it is your right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#2,895
#2,895
utvols88 said:
You just said it didn't apply. I stated how it could. That's all. I'm not saying that's the case. But regardless of that he had reasonable belief he was in danger to at least bodily harm. So it'll be a weapons charge and that's it. As it should be.

Fwiw I also think the parents need to look themselves in the mirror.
Click to expand...

I believe in Wisconsin self defense in inapplicable if used during the commission of a crime.
 
#2,897
#2,897
ClearwaterVol said:
My comment was mocking someone that celebrated the death of two Americans. Yeah, I am the bad guy.

You Trump fanboys just cannot ever get an opposing viewpoint correct. You love to make up arguments. I am all for a free market economy, but it doesn't solve all ills and rules and regulations are required. If you are speaking about my condemnation of people that boycott an American company solely because of a differing political viewpoint... It is allowed. The president should not be leading that charge and I believe that anyone that does so is decidedly unpatriotic and an a$$hole, but it is your right.
Click to expand...

You were mocking another person by cheering on the rape of a child?

I didnt make up anything. Think before you type if you dont like having your stupid thoughts used against you.
 
#2,898
#2,898
utvols88 said:
You just said it didn't apply. I stated how it could. That's all. I'm not saying that's the case. But regardless of that he had reasonable belief he was in danger to at least bodily harm. So it'll be a weapons charge and that's it. As it should be.

Fwiw I also think the parents need to look themselves in the mirror.
Click to expand...

Well, castle doctrine still doesn't apply, since he was not acting as a security guard (as far as we know) at the behest of the property owner; not to mention that one of the requirements to be armed security in Wisconsin is to be 21 years of age.

Whether he had reasonable belief of imminent death or bodily harm, is going to be in the hands of the jury. I don't think the "I heard a gun shot so I got scared, turned and shot the first guy I saw running at me" will alone pass muster for a self -defense case given the testimony that McGinnis gave in the criminal complaint, especially since Wisconsin doesn't have a 'stand your ground' clause.

I won't be surprised if charges are filed against his mother.
 
#2,899
#2,899
allvol123 said:
You were mocking another person by cheering on the rape of a child?

I didnt make up anything. Think before you type if you dont like having your stupid thoughts used against you.
Click to expand...

Sure you did. And then ignored my response. typical.

utvols88 said:
Someone posted the link that that's not the case. Most of the time it's a felony anyways.
Click to expand...

Could be correct. I was basing my comment on some stupid talking head. I have not researched it.
 
#2,900
#2,900
The fact of the matter is the kid probably won't face trial, he'll probably plead to a minor gun charge. If the DA takes it to trial he'll walk unless there is something not out there yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top