Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

Brian? wrote: »

The man with the skateboard was trying to tackle someone with a rifle he'd just witnessed shoot someone dead. He was attempting to apprehend a murderer and lost his life.

Stop watching edited videos and seek real information with context.

You are arguing with the logic of someone who thinks murder is an appropriate response for a building being destroyed, but doesn't think a building being destroyed is an appropriate response for murder.

brentanrodgers wrote: »

Here's what appears to be a full video of the Rittenhouse shootings in real time - to me it doesn't look like the first shooting was justified though he was being chased, the subsequent shootings do but it's a moot point really. Is there any additional footage of the initial shooting because that's what's important here.

Watched that clip of 1st incident about 20 times, still undecided. At first I thought Kyle was a full car length away and just out of camera when he shot but last few views I could see the guy in red head gear was either running up behind him or sneaking up. Can't tell if Kyle was being chased or was surprised by him and turned and shot. Best case he panicked and shot when he saw he coming up. Doesn't look like he just shot him randomly. Not clever trying to sneak up on or chase a guy with a rifle. The last 2 shootings were justified self defense, he didn't have much of a choice. Think the old saying better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 was used at that point. His legal team are trying to spin he was putting out fires when they took exception to it and attacked, though it is a possibility, it was definitely stupid of him to be even there.

Last week tonight was excellent this week
7.25 on focussed on Kenosha
https://youtu.be/rBu0BRTx2x8

Melanchthon wrote: »

Whats the deal with the shots, like first shot sounds different to the next three to me.

One of the rioters shot a pistol in the air.

Melanchthon wrote: »

Ah alright, had watched the video before but with only really bad headphones on so hadnt noticed it

There are some videos on YouTube that break videos down second-by-second

Retr0gamer wrote: »

News flash: Trump is the President, not Biden. The loot and rioting is all Trumps fault. He has done nothing to calm the situation and has in fact managed to make things worse.

All Biden can do is condemn the looting and violence which he has done consistently. Trump on the other hand is promoting vigilantism.

The rioting is happening in Democrat cities. The republican city’s asked for federal help so they where shut down early once they escalated. The president needs to be asked to intervene by city and state local officials. The Democratic leaders are refusing to ask for intervention and telling police to stand down so the situation is escalating then you have extremists like Antifa using the riots to create trouble.

This is handing the election to Trump. Most people want law and order not chaos. It’s the locals that will pay for these riots through tax and insurance increases. Over thirty people are dead, do their lives not matter too?

Potatoeman wrote: »

The rioting is happening in Democrat cities. The republican city’s asked for federal help so they where shut down early once they escalated. The president needs to be asked to intervene by city and state local officials. The Democratic leaders are refusing to ask for intervention and telling police to stand down so the situation is escalating then you have extremists like Antifa using the riots to create trouble.

This is handing the election to Trump. Most people want law and order not chaos. It’s the locals that will pay for these riots through tax and insurance increases. Over thirty people are dead, do their lives not matter too?

What exactly did they do in these Republican cities? Places like Portland have been simmering since before Trump was elected, there is a massive rural/urban divide. Running battles have been on going. Look what happened when Federal troops arrived or when the police used force it escalated the situation. When the troops pulled back the protests died down. It isn't hard to understand but if the likes of Tucker Carlson and Trump can convince people otherwise he has a chance of election but it isn't based in reality. Beat people down and they will push back harder, this is was what Trump wants, to turn America into a quagmire to keep himself out of jail.

droidus wrote: »

Well how come Biden's polling has gone from +6 to +9 in Wisconsin in the latest poll then?

Which poll and when was that done?

Interested for myself, not calling you out or anything. That would be an encouraging sign if correct.

Polls are a snapshot in time, so as I said I wouldn't be overly hyped one way or the other but the GOP, well Trump, is throwing his best fearmongering and stoking the tensions "bigly" right now so a quick look at the effect that's having would be informative.

FrostyJack wrote: »

What exactly did they do in these Republican cities? Places like Portland have been simmering since before Trump was elected, there is a massive rural/urban divide. Running battles have been on going. Look what happened when Federal troops arrived or when the police used force it escalated the situation. When the troops pulled back the protests died down. It isn't hard to understand but if the likes of Tucker Carlson and Trump can convince people otherwise he has a chance of election but it isn't based in reality. Beat people down and they will push back harder, this is was what Trump wants, to turn America into a quagmire to keep himself out of jail.

The republican states are charging people caught breaking the law and getting them off the streets. The protesters caught breaking the law in Democrat states are being released and not charged by the DA and judges. So it’s a revolving door system with little accountability. This is why the protests escalated in the democrat areas.

Federal troops were told they weren’t needed by local officials so they pulled out of Portland. This means Trump can turn around and say that he offered help but was told to pullout so anything that happens after this is not his responsibility.

Protests have to be peaceful to be effective, once they descend into violence any moral high ground is lost.

Potatoeman wrote: »

According to polls Hilary was going to have a landslide win.

According to polls Hillary had a 2/3 chance in winning.

Potatoeman wrote: »

According to polls Hilary was going to have a landslide win.

If you can't be bothered to know what your talking about before posting why would you bother posting?

---

Anyways, the polling is interesting to me because Wisconsin as a state is about 87% white I believe so that's who trump is trying to win over with his fear mongering. If it isn't having the desired effect that can only be a good thing. Wonder what else he will do of course between now and then. It's a state he needs really and not one he did particularly well in last time, he won the state with less votes than Romney had got like. He didn't inspire massive turnout for himself there previously.

A good morning.

At what point can it be agreed that a violent protest is legitimate? I don't think you could ever get two sides square on that. Not in the maelstrom, anyway. For example, if the Democrats really did come to take Americans' guns away, would all the NRA, 2nd amendment people protest that without resorting to violence? Call me crazy, but I have to think there'd be many in that contingent of people who'd think violence was a legitimate move. So, I think there's a case to say that how you see violence depends on which side you're on.

Further to this, when has an establishment condoned any violence apart from that which protects the establishment? Did the British condone the Boston Tea Party? No, it was met with dismay in Westminster. Did they British condone the war of Independence? No, they sent over the Black and Tans to help try and quash it. But yet these are celebrated historic events from the other sides, even though they feature wanton destruction of property and/or killing/thuggery.

So pro-establishment violence vs anti-establishment violence is how you arrive at battering BLM marchers vs. "We appreciate your help, Kyle."

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely no question that the media over-egged her lead and the likelihood of her victory , but the polling was pretty accurate all along.

So the suggestion that we see frequently that "the polling was wrong" etc. is completely incorrect.

Statewide polling turned out to be accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

briany wrote: »

At what point can it be agreed that a violent protest is legitimate? I don't think you could ever get two sides square on that. Not in the maelstrom, anyway. For example, if the Democrats really did come to take Americans' guns away, would all the NRA, 2nd amendment people protest that without resorting to violence? Call me crazy, but I have to think there'd be many in that contingent of people who'd think violence was a legitimate move. So, I think there's a case to say that how you see violence depends on which side you're on.

Further to this, when has an establishment condoned any violence apart from that which protects the establishment? Did the British condone the Boston Tea Party? No, it was met with dismay in Westminster. Did they British condone the war of Independence? No, they sent over the Black and Tans to help try and quash it. But yet these are celebrated historic events from the other sides, even though they feature wanton destruction of property and/or killing/thuggery.

So pro-establishment violence vs anti-establishment violence is how you arrive at battering BLM marchers vs. "We appreciate your help, Kyle."

If these protesters were out trashing Wall st or Congress, there might be some validity, at least in principle, to the violence. Instead they're destroying their own communities, looting luxury goods stores and randomly attacking people in the streets.

I'm not that well versed in my Revolutionary War history, but I don't remember Washington advocating the masses to seize whatever the equivalent of Gucci was at the time.

Startled Earwig wrote: »

Would you have supported the Civil Rights movement had you been around in the 1960s?

Would you have supported the anti-apartheid movement?

Yes and yes