Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
- Sep 22, 2014
- 37,287
- 42,565
You defend terrorism. You promote the interests of those engaging in it .You enable it, you run intetferrence for it, you identify with those causing it and you vilify those who oppose it.Pretty well a slur, saying someone supports domestic terrorism when they do not, never has and in fact ha been a part of an anti- civil disturbance operation, still having a official commendation in my "I love me" file. Analysis complete.you side with those who have been engaging in terrorism when you try to characterise a boy engaging in self defense against them the way you have been doing .Wasn't talking about the subject of the thread. Was talking to your statement of having an inalienable right to their own life. Your saying I support domestic terrorism is untrue, a useless slur, and I have no terrorist friends. Get a grip on you emotions, as they overwhelm your logic.Cops shooting violent criminals is not the subject of this thread.No. I do not. Your understanding would work equally well, regarding a criminal shooting cops to keep the cops from shooting them. That is a non-starter.Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.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.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.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.
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.
Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.
No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.
Mmmmkay?
It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie fucks and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. Fuck'em and the horse they rode in on.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.
The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.
Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.
Correction -- the child rapist and other career criminal you support cannot speak because of their OWN actions.
Where you and I differ is that you see attempted murder as some sort of right as long as you support the agenda involved, whereas I see people as having the inalienable right to their own life and so should be able to defend themselves against those trying to murder them.
That you support domestic terrorism BECAUSE cops end up shooting violent criminals is the issue here.
That a cop shoots a violent criminal resisting arrest DOES NOT justify your terrorist friends attacking the businesses of innocent people.
I am simply yelling the truth about what you support, so if you think that is a slur, perhaps your time would be better spent analyzing why you consider truth to be a slur.
I am characterizing the boy, (while of good intention) was part of the problem, not just and only part of the solution and was misguided in being allowed to be there, in defference to Wisconsin law prohibiting children from being on the streets in possession a firearm, unsupervised. That is not support of terrorism. I made no justification of the rioters or looters. The fact that you are "simply yelling" your misguided idea of truth of what I do or do not support, is nothing more than validation of your own emotional state.
That is support - beyond any possible shadow of a doubt.
Bye. 
