Kenosha: Trump declines to condemn violence from his supporters

[Cellblock2429]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

/—-/ Its about time. Bravo President Trump.

 

[Montrovant]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

Actually, from reading Wisconsin law, it was illegal for Rittenhouse to be carrying that gun. It's still uncertain where it was from and if it might have crossed state lines; his lawyer says not, but his lawyer also says it was legal for him to have the gun, and so far as I've been able to see, it was not.

Defending himself may have been perfectly fine legally, but the weapon he used to do it likely was not legal for him to have.

I feel the big question will involve the initial shooting.

As I understand it If you are legally carrying a firearm and are somewhere you have the legal right to be and you are not engaged in anything illegal — you have the right in many states to use your weapon to deter an individual who is attacking you with the intention of putting you in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under. Of course that assumes your attacker has the capability or the means to hurt or kill you. If he attacks you by spraying you with water from a hose lethal force is not necessary. If he wraps the hose around your neck and tries to choke you then lethal force is appropriate.

So in the first shooting did the shooter have the right to be where he was and was he not doing anything illegal? Was the first attack serious enough to justify lethal force? Those are my questiiins.

I think a determination about the first shooting could have a big impact on the rest. The video isn't that clear, but Rittenhouse definitely seemed to be running from the person he shot. That person also threw something in a plastic grocery bag at Rittenhouse. Whether the events justified lethal force in self-defense, I can't say. If that first shooting is determined to be murder or negligent homicide or something similar, would that make the people chasing Rittenhouse trying to disarm him legally justified, and hurt Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense in the second shootings?

My initial reaction is that both shootings qualify as self-defense. The biggest issue I have is Rittenhouse running from the first shooting. At that point he didn't appear to be chased, so the question is why he decided to run.

I also don't know if Rittenhouse having the gun illegally (which it seems he did, but I'm not certain of) has any affect on the legality of his actions.

 

[Godboy]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Since when is self defense bad?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Since when is self defense bad?

Self defense is not the problem. But “self defense” is often used as an excuse for aggression all over the world. We were supposedly “defending ourselves” from the threat of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq — when we invaded and occupied that country. The cop who just fired seven bullets into the back of a troubled African American — in front of his three children — also claims “self defense.”

My OP was about Trump’s hysterical fear-mongering and his defense of what I consider a clear case of vigilantism, to help his political re-election. I have written clearly here in this thread supporting 2nd Amendment rights, outlined what I would consider appropriate organized collective “armed self defense” and even described the different political responses to legal displays of arms in and near state buildings.

You can search through my past comments for more on these issues. Of course you don’t have to agree with my analysis. But unless you and others address the giant issue of what constitutes lone wolf or collective vigilantism, and how it is to be distinguished from genuine “armed self defense,” you are all basically avoiding the topic of this OP.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

He has a lot of guts not condemning someone for protecting his own life from rioting criminals.
What nerve.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I am guessing his visit was not an attempt to bring people together and defuse the situation ?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Since when is self defense bad?

Self defense is not the problem. But “self defense” is often used as an excuse for aggression all over the world. We were supposedly “defending ourselves” from the threat of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq — when we invaded and occupied that country. The cop who just fired seven bullets into the back of a fleeing / resisting African American also claims “self defense.”

My OP was about Trump’s hysterical fear-mongering and his defense of what I consider a clear case of vigilantism, to help his political re-election. I have written clearly here in this thread supporting 2nd Amendment rights, outlined what I would consider appropriate organized collective “armed self defense” and even described the different political responses to legal displays of arms in and near state buildings.

You can search through my past comments for more on these issues. Of course you don’t have to agree with my analysis. But unless you and others address the giant issue of what constitutes lone wolf or collective vigilantism, and how it is to be distinguished from genuine “armed self defense,” you are all basically avoiding the topic of this OP.

'Collective vigilantism' -- you mean, like when a mob of terrorists rampages through a city burning down the businesses of innocent people? That kind of collective vigilantism?

You are nothing less than a terrorist propagandist, here to elicit support for your terrorism through inversing the relationship between cause and effect, between aggression and defense, and between those who are innocent and those who are guilty.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Good. Go Trump. Screw BLM and ANTIFA pussies.

 

[JusticeHammer]

I am guessing his visit was not an attempt to bring people together and defuse the situation ?

STFU retarded Brit.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

It's illegal for retards to burn, loot and assault people to. Time to have Rittenhouse's.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

STFU retarded Brit.

I don't think it is very nice to call Tommy a retarded Brit, J.H. He is a retarded Welshman, and would resent being called a retarded Brit.

In any case, he certainly has no problem with the domestic terrorism and supports leftists burning down people's businesses because it is his people doing it.

 

[White 6]

OK. Here goes. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[1]
It gives me the right (which I exercise) to keep and bear arms for my own defense, particularly my home, as well as if needed to act as part of a regulated force in defense of the common good. That "well regulated" part has always been a sticky wicket. It gives me the right to possess and use, but not necessarily the right to define "regulated" or necessarily to engage in defining defensive or offensive operation with weapons, totally on my own volition.
What does it mean to you?

"Not Necessarily"

You hedged.

How so? Which detail of the 2nd amendment did you want did you want more depth of explanation on?

I do not need any further explanation from you to know why you hedged.

The 2nd Amendment speaks to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the security of a free State.

Your vacillations about what is and is not "necessarily" required in the exercise of that right is where you are hedging.

There is not always time for an individual or small group to organize and regulate themselves. Especially, when even the local law enforcement is under attack and defending themselves. "The people" have a Constitutional right to defend their self and the security of their State.

This young man was doing exactly that.

He should not have been thee doing it at all. No place for kids and you know it.

 

[Chuz Life]

OK. Here goes. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[1]
It gives me the right (which I exercise) to keep and bear arms for my own defense, particularly my home, as well as if needed to act as part of a regulated force in defense of the common good. That "well regulated" part has always been a sticky wicket. It gives me the right to possess and use, but not necessarily the right to define "regulated" or necessarily to engage in defining defensive or offensive operation with weapons, totally on my own volition.
What does it mean to you?

"Not Necessarily"

You hedged.

How so? Which detail of the 2nd amendment did you want did you want more depth of explanation on?

I do not need any further explanation from you to know why you hedged.

The 2nd Amendment speaks to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the security of a free State.

Your vacillations about what is and is not "necessarily" required in the exercise of that right is where you are hedging.

There is not always time for an individual or small group to organize and regulate themselves. Especially, when even the local law enforcement is under attack and defending themselves. "The people" have a Constitutional right to defend their self and the security of their State.

This young man was doing exactly that.

He should not have been thee doing it at all. No place for kids and you know it.

Funny, how it's so convenient for some people to try to have it both ways.

Care to explain how Rittenhouse is just a "kid" yet he is being charged as an adult?

No?

I'll bet not.

 

[Godboy]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Since when is self defense bad?

Self defense is not the problem. But “self defense” is often used as an excuse for aggression all over the world. We were supposedly “defending ourselves” from the threat of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq — when we invaded and occupied that country. The cop who just fired seven bullets into the back of a troubled African American — in front of his three children — also claims “self defense.”

My OP was about Trump’s hysterical fear-mongering and his defense of what I consider a clear case of vigilantism, to help his political re-election. I have written clearly here in this thread supporting 2nd Amendment rights, outlined what I would consider appropriate organized collective “armed self defense” and even described the different political responses to legal displays of arms in and near state buildings.

You can search through my past comments for more on these issues. Of course you don’t have to agree with my analysis. But unless you and others address the giant issue of what constitutes lone wolf or collective vigilantism, and how it is to be distinguished from genuine “armed self defense,” you are all basically avoiding the topic of this OP.

How is this a clear case of vigilantism? All we have to go on at the moment are the videos. They were attacking him before he fired a shot. A mob was attacking him!

 

[White 6]

OK. Here goes. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[1]
It gives me the right (which I exercise) to keep and bear arms for my own defense, particularly my home, as well as if needed to act as part of a regulated force in defense of the common good. That "well regulated" part has always been a sticky wicket. It gives me the right to possess and use, but not necessarily the right to define "regulated" or necessarily to engage in defining defensive or offensive operation with weapons, totally on my own volition.
What does it mean to you?

"Not Necessarily"

You hedged.

How so? Which detail of the 2nd amendment did you want did you want more depth of explanation on?

I do not need any further explanation from you to know why you hedged.

The 2nd Amendment speaks to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the security of a free State.

Your vacillations about what is and is not "necessarily" required in the exercise of that right is where you are hedging.

There is not always time for an individual or small group to organize and regulate themselves. Especially, when even the local law enforcement is under attack and defending themselves. "The people" have a Constitutional right to defend their self and the security of their State.

This young man was doing exactly that.

He should not have been thee doing it at all. No place for kids and you know it.

Funny, how it's so convenient for some people to try to have it both ways.

Care to explain how Rittenhouse is just a "kid" yet he is being charged as an adult?

No?

I'll bet not.

Somebody, other than me, wants him tried as an adult, and admittedly on offenses involving weapons and death, it is not uncommon. I have a little more charitable attitude about it and have said repeatedly he is just a dumb kid. He does not have a history of being in trouble or causing trouble that I am aware of. Further, I recognize a double standard, not due to the criminal background or the victims, and yes they were victims, but the charges themselves. Worst case scenario to me would be manslaughter, not murder. It would be predicated on recklessness, not intent and would acknowledge the underage carrying or the firearm. That underage carrying is what predicated the action and was the primary cause in him being involved in the shooting. If they do charge with the underaged carrying misdemeanor in the list of charges, how can the do it in adult court if they are admitting he is just a dumb kid by their own charges? As said it is not uncommon for prosecutors to push for moving to adult court proceedings and argue in favor, it should also not be unusual for them to look at people individually on the question, not just with sole goal to get as much as possible. If they want to go with treating him as an adult, I am not sure he didn't have a right to be there and with a weapon. Still immature stupid and ill advised, but still only coming up to manslaughter by stupid misadventure without intent to committ and not the use of a weapon prohibited to possess as an adult. Seems like some would like to have it both ways and indeed, that is not right.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How is this a clear case of vigilantism? All we have to go on at the moment are the videos. They were attacking him before he fired a shot. A mob was attacking him!

Correct and Chinese apologists aren't likely to be honest about this matter.
Just the same way they are dishonest about vigilantism and other self defense issues.

If the mayor of Kenosha and the governor of Wisconsin are going to lay down for the violent hateful mob,
filled with criminals, judging by the three men shot by Rittenhouse, and endanger surrounding communities
by encouraging the Jacobin mob to attack again and again,
then citizens, in the spirit of patriot soldiers have to fill the void and do what cowardly officials refuse to do.

We see patriots step forward in many instances and turn back mobs by their presence.
It's an American right and duty to step in when politicians cower and refuse to act.

It's at the very heart of the concept of self defense to act when the police cannot or will not act themselves.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

OK. Here goes. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[1]
It gives me the right (which I exercise) to keep and bear arms for my own defense, particularly my home, as well as if needed to act as part of a regulated force in defense of the common good. That "well regulated" part has always been a sticky wicket. It gives me the right to possess and use, but not necessarily the right to define "regulated" or necessarily to engage in defining defensive or offensive operation with weapons, totally on my own volition.
What does it mean to you?

"Not Necessarily"

You hedged.

How so? Which detail of the 2nd amendment did you want did you want more depth of explanation on?

I do not need any further explanation from you to know why you hedged.

The 2nd Amendment speaks to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the security of a free State.

Your vacillations about what is and is not "necessarily" required in the exercise of that right is where you are hedging.

There is not always time for an individual or small group to organize and regulate themselves. Especially, when even the local law enforcement is under attack and defending themselves. "The people" have a Constitutional right to defend their self and the security of their State.

This young man was doing exactly that.

He is not part of a Well Regulated Militia. He's part of a Vigilante one man army. This is what happens when vigilantes come into play. Now, I don't believe he will be convicted of 1st degree murder but there is a good case of some form of Manslaughter. There are enough state laws broken that there will be some repercussions. Now, whether he will be treat as an adult or a minor is questionable and the fact he's 17 may be the only thing that saves him for a 2 to 20 prison sentence. Meanwhile, the person that allowed him possession to that AR is in serious trouble no matter what.

 

[Dana7360]

"Declined to condemn"...was he asked to condemn the violence? I think the man is a narcissist con-man, but from the video I've seen, Rittenhouse WAS running from people and he WAS attacked before he shot them. There may be more information that would change things, but from what I've seen so far, I'd only "condemn violence from his supporters" in the sense that the kid shouldn't have been there, and armed, at all.

That video is taken AFTER he shot and killed a person.

He shot three people that night. Two of them died. One of them is in the hospital.

The only reason he was being chased is he shot and killed someone. The protesters were trying to subdue him because the police didn't do anything about it and the protesters didn't want more people killed or harmed.

In fact after he had shot three people, killing two of them, the police let him walk right by them, get in his car, drive back to Illinois and go home.

 

[blackhawk]

 

[Dana7360]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

What is illegal about defending yourself against armed attackers?

Let's shoot down some liberal arguments:

1. "He was too young to carry a gun."

Answer: Wrong, in Wisconsin 16 and 17yo's can have rifles and shotguns, as they are used to hunt.

2. He was illegally open carrying.

Answer: Wrong. Wisconsin is an open carry state.

3. He broke the law using deadly force.

Answer: Wrong. When attacked by someone who is chasing you that is fear for your life. Deadly force is reasonable.

4. He illegally transported the gun across state lines.

Answer: Wrong. The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. It never crossed state lines.

What to know about Wisconsin's open-carry laws, self defense and more in Kenosha protest shootings

Answers to questions like does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law and other relevant information on the fatal Kenosha shootings.

www.jsonline.com

While 16 and 17 year olds can have guns for hunting, there are requirements involved. Here's the relevant statutes from my searching:

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Unless Rittenhouse was certified for hunting, and possibly unless he had the gun specifically for the purposes of hunting (I'm not certain about that), he had it illegally, based on those statutes. Even with that certification, if the rifle fits the criteria of a short barreled rifle, it would still be illegal.

It's a misdemeanor crime. Whoever gave or lent the gun to him, on the other hand, is apparently guilty of a felony.

It is a felony in Wisconsin for a minor to open carry a weapon.

The fact that he had it and was open carrying it was a crime to begin with.

If he didn't bring it with, the adult who gave him that weapon is also guilty of a felony.