Why is the far left so upset that a 17 year old Patriot shoot arsonists and looters?

[Coyote]

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

So what he did was legal?

When you start to support vigilantism like this, you are no different than the looters and rioters. This all is coming together in a really bad way and dangerous way for our country.

the one difference here is, you didn't start it. but if you allow looters and rioters to tear shit up - you're a fool if you expect people to sit back and let it happen night after night after night.

It's starting to look like you are following me around from thread to thread.

Can't understand how you can on the one hand condemn rioting (which I agree with that condemnation) and yet support this. It's internally inconsistent.

Vigilantism is lawlessness. No different than rioting. A 17 year old in no way should be out there in a hyper volatile protest with a high powered rifle. IF the facts so far are correct - and the situation if evolving - he shot and KILLED two people and badly injured a third. Self defense is one thing, but in the initial killing, that does NOT appear to be the case.

The picture of him coming out is also disturbing. Funny how a protestor, standing across the street holding up speakers gets shot in the face by a rubber bullet, is vilified as a jobless bum (despite no evidence of actual participation in rioting) but this guy, illegally carrying a high powered rifle (he's 17) is a "hero". MURDER IS NOT HEROIC.

Something is messed up is very messed up right now if this is a "hero". Police are heroes. Undisciplined private paramilitaries are not. They are as dangerous as mobs of rioters. And they are ANTI-LAW. Anyone who believes in taking the law into their own hands and meting out justice is NOT LAWFUL.

What do we know about this kid?

Who is Kyle Rittenhouse? Here's what we know about the 17-year-old charged in the Kenosha protest shooting.

Before he took his rifle to confront the unrest in Kenosha, Wis., on Tuesday, allegedly killing two people and injuring another, Kyle Rittenhouse seemingly idolized one thing: the police. Growing […]

www.boston.com

But brief accounts from neighbors and local institutions paint the picture of a high school dropout who viewed law enforcement officers as his personal heroes.​

​

So much so that, when massive protests, looting and fires broke out in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake on Sunday, he crossed state lines to offer his support to local policemen – at times, speaking as if their duties were his, too.​

Police are heavily trained, and they know the law. These guys don't. They have no business acting like police.

There are WAY TOO MANY armed people at these protests and that includes "the left" - you once said once you bring firearms to a protest it is no longer peaceful. Still believe that?

There are WAY TOO MANY OUTSIDERS at these events - both "protestors" and "counter protestors" - they need to be thrown out of town.

Here is what one person said - is she right?

“Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing, but you don’t kill somebody,” she said. “That’s not your business to kill someone for messing with someone else’s business. That’s for the cops to deal with.”​

trying to participate in ongoing conversations. i reply to you, and many people. but if you wish to think i'm stalking you, well have fun with that.

in another thread, i asked WHY was that kid there? did he live there? was it his family or friends business he was trying to protect? i also hear he didn't live around there and came in to defend "something". which is right? dunno. but if he drove out there to go against the rioters, then i disagree with that move and ANYONE who wants to simply dive in and fire back to be part of the action.

HOWEVER - that means i also disagree with hiring professional "protesters" for your cause and porting them around. if your cause can't get the momentum it needs naturally then it's not much of a cause. it means i'm against hiring rioters and everyone else to shout BLM.

and i never said i supported the other group - you love to pit me to an extreme and pretend i say a lot of shit. yet when i try to clarify what you say, i get war and peace back and a I'M DONE WITH YOU (guess not, huh?) we've simply lost the middle ground of not only issues, but our ability to communicate with each other. we ignore where we agree and go to war on where we disagree but never seem to clarify our positions before moving on.

i try to do that a lot. you get mad and ghost on me.

here we are.

as an example - you laughed when soros' name was mentioned earlier. i asked you to clarify if you thought he had nothing to do with any of this so i could understand your position before commenting further so i knew what i would be talking about. POOF you never replied. so at times yes i try to get an answer from you to clarify your positions and it seems to piss you off.

oh well.

This was actually answered in an article I posted a few post back.

 

[Jitss617]

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

So what he did was legal?

Lol Yes Trump supporters have a right to self-defense

 

[Turtlesoup]

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

So what he did was legal?

When you start to support vigilantism like this, you are no different than the looters and rioters. This all is coming together in a really bad way and dangerous way for our country.

Everyone is screaming, no one is actually listening.

This has been getting worse for a long time, and we've reached a point that was entirely predictable.

We need some honesty and some critical thinking pretty soon, and I don't know that we have that ability any more.

I'm very afraid that out of control processes have begun with each side fully blaming the other and ignoring the bigger picture. Our country is like dry tinder right now....

That's exactly how I see it. Each end of this is now essentially at 100%, with zero consideration being given to the other. None.

Either (a) they foolishly think they can really somehow "beat" the other side, or (b) they really don't care about fixing anything and are fine with destroying everything. This is madness.

It's really hard to discuss this, because the environment of USMB forces me into positions I don't really support. I know that that occurs to other members which is why we set up the invite only debates, to allow some real discussions.

But I agree with you - both sides seem to be in a zero-sum strategy, where there is no middle ground or rationality. And psychologically it creates a self reinforcing death spiral.

You are fed a constant stream of disinformation that feeds the emotions and you react, eventually creating the very event that you are forcasting. Does that make sense?

There are not just "two sides" - the majority of both the left and the right want law and order. The Dem governors don't want riots any more than the Rep governors - they are responsible for these people AND, in a more cynical view, riots aren't going to get them re-elected. But it's a fine line between putting down riots and infringing on legitimate free speech. Most of these events don't START as a riot.

Kenosha was tragic on many levels - but it also represents something that happens too often.

One of the articles I read was interviewing tearful residents - owners of local business begging protestors not to destroy them, because we are YOUR people, these are YOUR businesses. And that is true. And, though this is not morally equivalent, it reminds me of the Bosnian/Serb conflict where villages, who's ethnically different residents had been neighbors and coworkers and friends for generations, rapidly turned on each other and the victim just couldn't understand it - how could you do this to people you had lived with, dined with, gone to school with?

And then these factors make it much worse.

• The coming in of outside agitators.
• The role of social media - groups claiming to be other groups, groups setting up violent confrontation based on deliberate disinformation, people unintentionally setting up violent confrontation through unknowingly spreading disinformation.
• Agendas from extremist groups that have no real affiliation to the mainstream left/right.

I support the police, I always have - two cousins are in law enforcement, but we DO need to do something about the problems in policing whether you call them bad apples or "systemic racism" - something needs to be seen to be done. But is there any space for that now?

I'm sick of this being portrayed as just left/right...that forces people into taking sides and participating in the zero sum game.

What to do? Strict curfews? More national guard presence at the ready since this was set off so quickly? Clamp down on protesters AND militias? Ban guns at protests? (probably not doable given our culture)....and how do we do this while accommodating our rights? Or do we give them up?

I don't have an answer other than fear and frustration at the lack of coherent leadership now and the complete politicization of EVERYTHING.

....thanks for listening to my rant....


So the question is what do you do?

Simple the dems have encouraged the communists and blm to attack to much this time----to wide spread. They will never ever be peaceful---they have tasted blood and want more. This means, human nature being human nature---that in order to stop them from attacking so we can go back to our peaceful lives that we are going to have use the A-bomb solution of 1945 for Japan and stop pretending that appeasements or embargos will stop these violent animals from attacking.



The dems want a civil war in order to nullify the election making Pelosi emperor. The encouragement of the thugs and rioters etc is a way to create chaos and fear in order to do this. But to stand by only means that the thugs and rioters hold us hostage longer and kill more people-------

We will all have to make awful tuff decisions that we don't want to make. The kid made one----and I can't say from a society standpoint that he was wrong. I worry about his safety and life goals though as he will have a target on his back forever. I hate that a 17 year old has to sacrifice so much for the rest of us.

 

[Mac1958]

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

So what he did was legal?

When you start to support vigilantism like this, you are no different than the looters and rioters. This all is coming together in a really bad way and dangerous way for our country.

Everyone is screaming, no one is actually listening.

This has been getting worse for a long time, and we've reached a point that was entirely predictable.

We need some honesty and some critical thinking pretty soon, and I don't know that we have that ability any more.

I'm very afraid that out of control processes have begun with each side fully blaming the other and ignoring the bigger picture. Our country is like dry tinder right now....

That's exactly how I see it. Each end of this is now essentially at 100%, with zero consideration being given to the other. None.

Either (a) they foolishly think they can really somehow "beat" the other side, or (b) they really don't care about fixing anything and are fine with destroying everything. This is madness.

It's really hard to discuss this, because the environment of USMB forces me into positions I don't really support. I know that that occurs to other members which is why we set up the invite only debates, to allow some real discussions.

But I agree with you - both sides seem to be in a zero-sum strategy, where there is no middle ground or rationality. And psychologically it creates a self reinforcing death spiral.

You are fed a constant stream of disinformation that feeds the emotions and you react, eventually creating the very event that you are forcasting. Does that make sense?

There are not just "two sides" - the majority of both the left and the right want law and order. The Dem governors don't want riots any more than the Rep governors - they are responsible for these people AND, in a more cynical view, riots aren't going to get them re-elected. But it's a fine line between putting down riots and infringing on legitimate free speech. Most of these events don't START as a riot.

Kenosha was tragic on many levels - but it also represents something that happens too often.

One of the articles I read was interviewing tearful residents - owners of local business begging protestors not to destroy them, because we are YOUR people, these are YOUR businesses. And that is true. And, though this is not morally equivalent, it reminds me of the Bosnian/Serb conflict where villages, who's ethnically different residents had been neighbors and coworkers and friends for generations, rapidly turned on each other and the victim just couldn't understand it - how could you do this to people you had lived with, dined with, gone to school with?

And then these factors make it much worse.

• The coming in of outside agitators.
• The role of social media - groups claiming to be other groups, groups setting up violent confrontation based on deliberate disinformation, people unintentionally setting up violent confrontation through unknowingly spreading disinformation.
• Agendas from extremist groups that have no real affiliation to the mainstream left/right.

I support the police, I always have - two cousins are in law enforcement, but we DO need to do something about the problems in policing whether you call them bad apples or "systemic racism" - something needs to be seen to be done. But is there any space for that now?

I'm sick of this being portrayed as just left/right...that forces people into taking sides and participating in the zero sum game.

What to do? Strict curfews? More national guard presence at the ready since this was set off so quickly? Clamp down on protesters AND militias? Ban guns at protests? (probably not doable given our culture)....and how do we do this while accommodating our rights? Or do we give them up?

I don't have an answer other than fear and frustration at the lack of coherent leadership now and the complete politicization of EVERYTHING.

....thanks for listening to my rant....


So the question is what do you do?

I still maintain (in the face of everything going in exactly the opposite direction) that the only way we fix this problem, and other problems, is to hold our "sides" accountable for their actions. And those of us -- probably the majority -- who don't see any reason to cling to a "side", we have to just keep fighting for that.

Look at what happens when the Left is pretending to have a serious discussion on race, for example. The entire conversation (and I'm talking about talk shows, forums on CSPAN, all of it) is about what the Right is doing wrong. No honest self-examination or accountability. No admission that perhaps things are being done wrong on their end. And of course, precisely the same thing happens on the other end. The Right absolutely refuses to honestly listen to what minorities are saying.

And my guess is that we'll need a few very brave individuals on each end to loudly and clearly say "enough is enough", and urge communication and honesty. Someone has to get the momentum started on this, and it will have to come from people who are willing to take a beating from their "side" to do it.

But as time goes on, I'm becoming less confident this will happen. For the first time, I really am wondering if those who are so committed to separating may get their way. These people are weak, and they are cowards, but they're winning right now.

 

[Coyote]

./;l

I still maintain (in the face of everything going in exactly the opposite direction) that the only way we fix this problem, and other problems, is to hold our "sides" accountable for their actions. And those of us -- probably the majority -- who don't see any reason to cling to a "side", we have to just keep fighting for that.

Look at what happens when the Left is pretending to have a serious discussion on race, for example. The entire conversation (and I'm talking about talk shows, forums on CSPAN, all of it) is about what the Right is doing wrong. No honest self-examination or accountability. No admission that perhaps things are being done wrong on their end. And of course, precisely the same thing happens on the other end. The Right absolutely refuses to honestly listen to what minorities are saying.

I can't say I'm not on a side - I am "left" plain and simple. It's hard to take an honest look without just being defensive in the constant barrage of noise and attack directed at us. But I agree. And racial issues are a particularly good point. Rather than listening, we stake out a position on a hill and defend it to the death, repeating "but but the right".

And my guess is that we'll need a few very brave individuals on each end to loudly and clearly say "enough is enough", and urge communication and honesty. Someone has to get the momentum started on this, and it will have to come from people who are willing to take a beating from their "side" to do it.

In terms of the political picture...I do see some possibility of light if Biden gets elected. The fact that there are Republicans supporting him is auspicious. But he will still have to contend with the party's progressive base. The fact that he came straight out and said he isn't for "defunding police" is a positive along with looking at ways of reforming it, such as consent decrees. We can't ignore the fact that both racial minorities AND police are feeling very beleaguered right now.

But as time goes on, I'm becoming less confident this will happen. For the first time, I really am wondering if those who are so committed to separating may get their way. These people are weak, and they are cowards, but they're winning right now.

I am very afraid. Never seen anything like this in my adult life. I'm told the civil rights/vietnam/1960's era was very divisive. But I was a child living overseas then. So I don't really know.

 

[iceberg]

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

So what he did was legal?

When you start to support vigilantism like this, you are no different than the looters and rioters. This all is coming together in a really bad way and dangerous way for our country.

the one difference here is, you didn't start it. but if you allow looters and rioters to tear shit up - you're a fool if you expect people to sit back and let it happen night after night after night.

It's starting to look like you are following me around from thread to thread.

Can't understand how you can on the one hand condemn rioting (which I agree with that condemnation) and yet support this. It's internally inconsistent.

Vigilantism is lawlessness. No different than rioting. A 17 year old in no way should be out there in a hyper volatile protest with a high powered rifle. IF the facts so far are correct - and the situation if evolving - he shot and KILLED two people and badly injured a third. Self defense is one thing, but in the initial killing, that does NOT appear to be the case.

The picture of him coming out is also disturbing. Funny how a protestor, standing across the street holding up speakers gets shot in the face by a rubber bullet, is vilified as a jobless bum (despite no evidence of actual participation in rioting) but this guy, illegally carrying a high powered rifle (he's 17) is a "hero". MURDER IS NOT HEROIC.

Something is messed up is very messed up right now if this is a "hero". Police are heroes. Undisciplined private paramilitaries are not. They are as dangerous as mobs of rioters. And they are ANTI-LAW. Anyone who believes in taking the law into their own hands and meting out justice is NOT LAWFUL.

What do we know about this kid?

Who is Kyle Rittenhouse? Here's what we know about the 17-year-old charged in the Kenosha protest shooting.

Before he took his rifle to confront the unrest in Kenosha, Wis., on Tuesday, allegedly killing two people and injuring another, Kyle Rittenhouse seemingly idolized one thing: the police. Growing […]

www.boston.com

But brief accounts from neighbors and local institutions paint the picture of a high school dropout who viewed law enforcement officers as his personal heroes.​

​

So much so that, when massive protests, looting and fires broke out in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake on Sunday, he crossed state lines to offer his support to local policemen – at times, speaking as if their duties were his, too.​

Police are heavily trained, and they know the law. These guys don't. They have no business acting like police.

There are WAY TOO MANY armed people at these protests and that includes "the left" - you once said once you bring firearms to a protest it is no longer peaceful. Still believe that?

There are WAY TOO MANY OUTSIDERS at these events - both "protestors" and "counter protestors" - they need to be thrown out of town.

Here is what one person said - is she right?

“Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing, but you don’t kill somebody,” she said. “That’s not your business to kill someone for messing with someone else’s business. That’s for the cops to deal with.”​

trying to participate in ongoing conversations. i reply to you, and many people. but if you wish to think i'm stalking you, well have fun with that.

in another thread, i asked WHY was that kid there? did he live there? was it his family or friends business he was trying to protect? i also hear he didn't live around there and came in to defend "something". which is right? dunno. but if he drove out there to go against the rioters, then i disagree with that move and ANYONE who wants to simply dive in and fire back to be part of the action.

HOWEVER - that means i also disagree with hiring professional "protesters" for your cause and porting them around. if your cause can't get the momentum it needs naturally then it's not much of a cause. it means i'm against hiring rioters and everyone else to shout BLM.

and i never said i supported the other group - you love to pit me to an extreme and pretend i say a lot of shit. yet when i try to clarify what you say, i get war and peace back and a I'M DONE WITH YOU (guess not, huh?) we've simply lost the middle ground of not only issues, but our ability to communicate with each other. we ignore where we agree and go to war on where we disagree but never seem to clarify our positions before moving on.

i try to do that a lot. you get mad and ghost on me.

here we are.

as an example - you laughed when soros' name was mentioned earlier. i asked you to clarify if you thought he had nothing to do with any of this so i could understand your position before commenting further so i knew what i would be talking about. POOF you never replied. so at times yes i try to get an answer from you to clarify your positions and it seems to piss you off.

oh well.

This was actually answered in an article I posted a few post back.

so should i follow you around more often or not?

and which part was answered - why the kid was there or if you feel soros is or is NOT funding these rioters? we know he backs a lot of the people in power who are turning their heads right now. or would you disagree there too?

 

[mudwhistle]

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

Because what he did was murder

Nope.
One of them clubbed him with a skateboard and another was jumping up in the air trying crush his skull.
I call that self-defense....and so would every court in the country.

The third had a pistol and was just about to shoot him. He got his arm blown off though.

No.....he caught a round but his arm was intact.

I'm not allowed to post the image on USMB, but his arm will be amputated for sure. No amount of grafting can repair that injury.

OMG..... HOW HORRIBLE!!!

 

[iceberg]

./;l

I still maintain (in the face of everything going in exactly the opposite direction) that the only way we fix this problem, and other problems, is to hold our "sides" accountable for their actions. And those of us -- probably the majority -- who don't see any reason to cling to a "side", we have to just keep fighting for that.

Look at what happens when the Left is pretending to have a serious discussion on race, for example. The entire conversation (and I'm talking about talk shows, forums on CSPAN, all of it) is about what the Right is doing wrong. No honest self-examination or accountability. No admission that perhaps things are being done wrong on their end. And of course, precisely the same thing happens on the other end. The Right absolutely refuses to honestly listen to what minorities are saying.

I can't say I'm not on a side - I am "left" plain and simple. It's hard to take an honest look without just being defensive in the constant barrage of noise and attack directed at us. But I agree. And racial issues are a particularly good point. Rather than listening, we stake out a position on a hill and defend it to the death, repeating "but but the right".

And my guess is that we'll need a few very brave individuals on each end to loudly and clearly say "enough is enough", and urge communication and honesty. Someone has to get the momentum started on this, and it will have to come from people who are willing to take a beating from their "side" to do it.

In terms of the political picture...I do see some possibility of light if Biden gets elected. The fact that there are Republicans supporting him is auspicious. But he will still have to contend with the party's progressive base. The fact that he came straight out and said he isn't for "defunding police" is a positive along with looking at ways of reforming it, such as consent decrees. We can't ignore the fact that both racial minorities AND police are feeling very beleaguered right now.

But as time goes on, I'm becoming less confident this will happen. For the first time, I really am wondering if those who are so committed to separating may get their way. These people are weak, and they are cowards, but they're winning right now.

I am very afraid. Never seen anything like this in my adult life. I'm told the civil rights/vietnam/1960's era was very divisive. But I was a child living overseas then. So I don't really know.

seems like a good convo whether i agree or not so not out to derail. but i lived in austin, tx during this time. i was 5 when the 70s were over but what i recall, there were a lot of similarities in what was happening. my young impression was a contradiction overall with "give us peace or we will beat your ass til you do" is what i heard / saw. i didn't understand at the time how violence against people who don't share your views would *ever* get people to understand, much less appreciate, your views.

i don't recall it being this bad, however; random people simply shooting each other in the streets for whatever cause they feel important enough to do so.

the only thing today is - what do the people doing this violence want to happen in order to stop?

i don't think anyone can answer that question as i don't think there *is* an answer. and if we have an agenda, not a problem, then it becomes a whole different game and it does appear you're using violence to change our government and ways of life for a lot of people who may simply not want to do that regardless of how much someone feels it must happen.

 

[Coyote]

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

So what he did was legal?

When you start to support vigilantism like this, you are no different than the looters and rioters. This all is coming together in a really bad way and dangerous way for our country.

the one difference here is, you didn't start it. but if you allow looters and rioters to tear shit up - you're a fool if you expect people to sit back and let it happen night after night after night.

It's starting to look like you are following me around from thread to thread.

Can't understand how you can on the one hand condemn rioting (which I agree with that condemnation) and yet support this. It's internally inconsistent.

Vigilantism is lawlessness. No different than rioting. A 17 year old in no way should be out there in a hyper volatile protest with a high powered rifle. IF the facts so far are correct - and the situation if evolving - he shot and KILLED two people and badly injured a third. Self defense is one thing, but in the initial killing, that does NOT appear to be the case.

The picture of him coming out is also disturbing. Funny how a protestor, standing across the street holding up speakers gets shot in the face by a rubber bullet, is vilified as a jobless bum (despite no evidence of actual participation in rioting) but this guy, illegally carrying a high powered rifle (he's 17) is a "hero". MURDER IS NOT HEROIC.

Something is messed up is very messed up right now if this is a "hero". Police are heroes. Undisciplined private paramilitaries are not. They are as dangerous as mobs of rioters. And they are ANTI-LAW. Anyone who believes in taking the law into their own hands and meting out justice is NOT LAWFUL.

What do we know about this kid?

Who is Kyle Rittenhouse? Here's what we know about the 17-year-old charged in the Kenosha protest shooting.

Before he took his rifle to confront the unrest in Kenosha, Wis., on Tuesday, allegedly killing two people and injuring another, Kyle Rittenhouse seemingly idolized one thing: the police. Growing […]

www.boston.com

But brief accounts from neighbors and local institutions paint the picture of a high school dropout who viewed law enforcement officers as his personal heroes.​

​

So much so that, when massive protests, looting and fires broke out in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake on Sunday, he crossed state lines to offer his support to local policemen – at times, speaking as if their duties were his, too.​

Police are heavily trained, and they know the law. These guys don't. They have no business acting like police.

There are WAY TOO MANY armed people at these protests and that includes "the left" - you once said once you bring firearms to a protest it is no longer peaceful. Still believe that?

There are WAY TOO MANY OUTSIDERS at these events - both "protestors" and "counter protestors" - they need to be thrown out of town.

Here is what one person said - is she right?

“Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing, but you don’t kill somebody,” she said. “That’s not your business to kill someone for messing with someone else’s business. That’s for the cops to deal with.”​

trying to participate in ongoing conversations. i reply to you, and many people. but if you wish to think i'm stalking you, well have fun with that.

in another thread, i asked WHY was that kid there? did he live there? was it his family or friends business he was trying to protect? i also hear he didn't live around there and came in to defend "something". which is right? dunno. but if he drove out there to go against the rioters, then i disagree with that move and ANYONE who wants to simply dive in and fire back to be part of the action.

HOWEVER - that means i also disagree with hiring professional "protesters" for your cause and porting them around. if your cause can't get the momentum it needs naturally then it's not much of a cause. it means i'm against hiring rioters and everyone else to shout BLM.

and i never said i supported the other group - you love to pit me to an extreme and pretend i say a lot of shit. yet when i try to clarify what you say, i get war and peace back and a I'M DONE WITH YOU (guess not, huh?) we've simply lost the middle ground of not only issues, but our ability to communicate with each other. we ignore where we agree and go to war on where we disagree but never seem to clarify our positions before moving on.

i try to do that a lot. you get mad and ghost on me.

here we are.

as an example - you laughed when soros' name was mentioned earlier. i asked you to clarify if you thought he had nothing to do with any of this so i could understand your position before commenting further so i knew what i would be talking about. POOF you never replied. so at times yes i try to get an answer from you to clarify your positions and it seems to piss you off.

oh well.

This was actually answered in an article I posted a few post back.

so should i follow you around more often or not?

and which part was answered - why the kid was there or if you feel soros is or is NOT funding these rioters? we know he backs a lot of the people in power who are turning their heads right now. or would you disagree there too?

The part I bolded in your preceding post.

 

[Mac1958]

./;l

I still maintain (in the face of everything going in exactly the opposite direction) that the only way we fix this problem, and other problems, is to hold our "sides" accountable for their actions. And those of us -- probably the majority -- who don't see any reason to cling to a "side", we have to just keep fighting for that.

Look at what happens when the Left is pretending to have a serious discussion on race, for example. The entire conversation (and I'm talking about talk shows, forums on CSPAN, all of it) is about what the Right is doing wrong. No honest self-examination or accountability. No admission that perhaps things are being done wrong on their end. And of course, precisely the same thing happens on the other end. The Right absolutely refuses to honestly listen to what minorities are saying.

I can't say I'm not on a side - I am "left" plain and simple. It's hard to take an honest look without just being defensive in the constant barrage of noise and attack directed at us. But I agree. And racial issues are a particularly good point. Rather than listening, we stake out a position on a hill and defend it to the death, repeating "but but the right".

And my guess is that we'll need a few very brave individuals on each end to loudly and clearly say "enough is enough", and urge communication and honesty. Someone has to get the momentum started on this, and it will have to come from people who are willing to take a beating from their "side" to do it.

In terms of the political picture...I do see some possibility of light if Biden gets elected. The fact that there are Republicans supporting him is auspicious. But he will still have to contend with the party's progressive base. The fact that he came straight out and said he isn't for "defunding police" is a positive along with looking at ways of reforming it, such as consent decrees. We can't ignore the fact that both racial minorities AND police are feeling very beleaguered right now.

But as time goes on, I'm becoming less confident this will happen. For the first time, I really am wondering if those who are so committed to separating may get their way. These people are weak, and they are cowards, but they're winning right now.

I am very afraid. Never seen anything like this in my adult life. I'm told the civil rights/vietnam/1960's era was very divisive. But I was a child living overseas then. So I don't really know.

I certainly agree that chances of success are significantly higher with Biden. Obviously Trump has chosen sides and Biden would probably try to open lines of communication. But I don't think it would start with him. It still has to begin with other people.

 

[lennypartiv]

Because what he did was murder

You libs should be happy. If more righteous vigilantes do this then Trump won't need to send federal law enforcement to Wisconsin.

 

[BigDave]

 

[iceberg]

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

So what he did was legal?

When you start to support vigilantism like this, you are no different than the looters and rioters. This all is coming together in a really bad way and dangerous way for our country.

the one difference here is, you didn't start it. but if you allow looters and rioters to tear shit up - you're a fool if you expect people to sit back and let it happen night after night after night.

It's starting to look like you are following me around from thread to thread.

Can't understand how you can on the one hand condemn rioting (which I agree with that condemnation) and yet support this. It's internally inconsistent.

Vigilantism is lawlessness. No different than rioting. A 17 year old in no way should be out there in a hyper volatile protest with a high powered rifle. IF the facts so far are correct - and the situation if evolving - he shot and KILLED two people and badly injured a third. Self defense is one thing, but in the initial killing, that does NOT appear to be the case.

The picture of him coming out is also disturbing. Funny how a protestor, standing across the street holding up speakers gets shot in the face by a rubber bullet, is vilified as a jobless bum (despite no evidence of actual participation in rioting) but this guy, illegally carrying a high powered rifle (he's 17) is a "hero". MURDER IS NOT HEROIC.

Something is messed up is very messed up right now if this is a "hero". Police are heroes. Undisciplined private paramilitaries are not. They are as dangerous as mobs of rioters. And they are ANTI-LAW. Anyone who believes in taking the law into their own hands and meting out justice is NOT LAWFUL.

What do we know about this kid?

Who is Kyle Rittenhouse? Here's what we know about the 17-year-old charged in the Kenosha protest shooting.

Before he took his rifle to confront the unrest in Kenosha, Wis., on Tuesday, allegedly killing two people and injuring another, Kyle Rittenhouse seemingly idolized one thing: the police. Growing […]

www.boston.com

But brief accounts from neighbors and local institutions paint the picture of a high school dropout who viewed law enforcement officers as his personal heroes.​

​

So much so that, when massive protests, looting and fires broke out in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake on Sunday, he crossed state lines to offer his support to local policemen – at times, speaking as if their duties were his, too.​

Police are heavily trained, and they know the law. These guys don't. They have no business acting like police.

There are WAY TOO MANY armed people at these protests and that includes "the left" - you once said once you bring firearms to a protest it is no longer peaceful. Still believe that?

There are WAY TOO MANY OUTSIDERS at these events - both "protestors" and "counter protestors" - they need to be thrown out of town.

Here is what one person said - is she right?

“Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing, but you don’t kill somebody,” she said. “That’s not your business to kill someone for messing with someone else’s business. That’s for the cops to deal with.”​

trying to participate in ongoing conversations. i reply to you, and many people. but if you wish to think i'm stalking you, well have fun with that.

in another thread, i asked WHY was that kid there? did he live there? was it his family or friends business he was trying to protect? i also hear he didn't live around there and came in to defend "something". which is right? dunno. but if he drove out there to go against the rioters, then i disagree with that move and ANYONE who wants to simply dive in and fire back to be part of the action.

HOWEVER - that means i also disagree with hiring professional "protesters" for your cause and porting them around. if your cause can't get the momentum it needs naturally then it's not much of a cause. it means i'm against hiring rioters and everyone else to shout BLM.

and i never said i supported the other group - you love to pit me to an extreme and pretend i say a lot of shit. yet when i try to clarify what you say, i get war and peace back and a I'M DONE WITH YOU (guess not, huh?) we've simply lost the middle ground of not only issues, but our ability to communicate with each other. we ignore where we agree and go to war on where we disagree but never seem to clarify our positions before moving on.

i try to do that a lot. you get mad and ghost on me.

here we are.

as an example - you laughed when soros' name was mentioned earlier. i asked you to clarify if you thought he had nothing to do with any of this so i could understand your position before commenting further so i knew what i would be talking about. POOF you never replied. so at times yes i try to get an answer from you to clarify your positions and it seems to piss you off.

oh well.

This was actually answered in an article I posted a few post back.

so should i follow you around more often or not?

and which part was answered - why the kid was there or if you feel soros is or is NOT funding these rioters? we know he backs a lot of the people in power who are turning their heads right now. or would you disagree there too?

The part I bolded in your preceding post.

making sure - now, any comment on whether or not you think soros is behind any of these? i saw you laugh off someone who said they felt so, i'd like to clarify.

do you think soros is helping keep the fighting going?

 

[iceberg]

View attachment 380702

gotta give props for not dropping it.

 

[JimZiegelbauer]

The Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha and Guardian of Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers, the townsfolk of Kenosha who have suffered immense harm by the hands of Rioters, Rapists, Arsonists, Looters and Thugs.

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

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.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

because he is white with takes awayhe narative that all looters and rioters are BLACK

 

[Toro]

One person is not a "well-organized militia."

That young man is going to prison for a long, long time.

 

[lennypartiv]

So what he did was legal?

It probably should be. We need to use violence against violence. No matter what you crazy liberals say, I will always defend the National Guard in Ohio who put down the riots at Kent State. Letting students practice civil disobedience like that is what will bring our country down.

 

[22lcidw]

The Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha and Guardian of Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers, the townsfolk of Kenosha who have suffered immense harm by the hands of Rioters, Rapists, Arsonists, Looters and Thugs.

Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.

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.

The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.

So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.

It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.

Patriots and defenders do not go searching for someone to shoot. It's premeditated murder. Nothing less.

So we have rules for anarchy? If you do not like it it is not fair? Face it. It has been a near total one sided affair for months. You have to expect at some point that someone or someones would do something. Especially when the police that the same side supports is not doing a damn thing. Except to arrest the guy on their side. We need to at some point deescalate this nightly fiasco. Unless your side ups the ante and gets serious. The cities will slowly die. And you will be left there with far less. Understand that. The track record in communities is not good. Make the deals.

 

[Mac-7]

Because what he did was murder

It looks like self defense to me

 

[Coyote]

seems like a good convo whether i agree or not so not out to derail. but i lived in austin, tx during this time. i was 5 when the 70s were over but what i recall, there were a lot of similarities in what was happening. my young impression was a contradiction overall with "give us peace or we will beat your ass til you do" is what i heard / saw. i didn't understand at the time how violence against people who don't share your views would *ever* get people to understand, much less appreciate, your views.

i don't recall it being this bad, however; random people simply shooting each other in the streets for whatever cause they feel important enough to do so.

I graduated Highschool in 77....my thoughts of the 70's at the time were .... boring. The 60's had all the cool stuff. (hey, I was a teenager then). From what my mother said - the 60's were hugely culturally divisive, but she said she never experienced it directly because we were overseas. I would have 1 to 6 in age, and would have been more concerned with Christmas presents than Politics.

It's hard to get an accurate feel for what is going on now and compare it because we are in the middle of it and because there are some distinct differences. The availability of high weaponry weaponry, the overall greater number of guns out there, the role of the internet and social media (Broadcast TV and radio were it when I was a kid)...PC did not exist BUT we had good manners drilled into us. And, some of the things being "fought for" now are harder to quantify or define, like systemic racism and police brutality, unlike civil rights and segregation.

I was oblivious to guns...my grandfather had them, but was very strict. I don't remember random shootings, I didn't know anyone else that had a gun....and I never saw one in our schools. It was not a familiar culture to me in the 60's and 70's suburban America. I don't remember the sheer amount of gun violence we see now BUT, we also didn't have cable news, the internet, and the 24 hour news cycle bringing every event into our living rooms.

the only thing today is - what do the people doing this violence want to happen in order to stop?

i don't think anyone can answer that question as i don't think there *is* an answer. and if we have an agenda, not a problem, then it becomes a whole different game and it does appear you're using violence to change our government and ways of life for a lot of people who may simply not want to do that regardless of how much someone feels it must happen.

I both agree and disagree.

What do they want? At this point...I don't think there is any clear single "want" or "agenda" anymore, and for many I think it's just a self-rewarding cycle of anger and release (violence) without a clear desired outcome. I also do not think violence will change people's minds to be receptive. Ever.

I see different ways of looking at it. From a biological point of view because we are, after all, social animals, and currently some of us are acting more like troops of monkeys than rational beings...acts of violence are self rewarding. People are angry and frustrated and taking up a "cause" gives them an outlet for that frustration and, face it, fear. We are in bad times.

We are VERY AFRAID, even if we don't want to admit it. We are afraid of the breakdown of our country (translated into the politics of left/right), we are afraid of a pandemic, of our security (economic, law and order - which translates into minorities who fear abuse by it, and the who fear the breakdown of law and order), fear our elections can't be trusted, fear our elected officials can't be trusted, fear there will be no jobs or end to debt (our young people), fear of global warming causing permanent damage, fear of being left behind in social change and forgotten. It's a perfect storm for civl unrest.

It's convenient to assign targets to direct that fear against - police, immigrants, left, right, commies, white supremacists, Dems, Republicans, etc. But I think those are just labels because they offer us something concrete to focus our anger on. Social injustice, globalism, cultural upheaval - you can't put a face to that.

I think fear pre-exists the current unrest. Globalism and cultural change is inevitable. It's part of life and part of evolving. We are not who we were 50 years ago or 10 years ago. The problem I guess is when people get left behind, their concerns unaddressed, forgotten, in sweeping change.

That goes well beyond what you asked and yes it's rambling.

I don't think people are using violence to change culture. And the reason is - there is no "cultural aim" here...there isn't even a distinct political aim (as in partisan politics).

The other thing you mentioned...about "agendas" is more worrisome.

I do not believe there is a "single agenda". I think you have a lot of people taking advantage of this unrest to push a variety of agendas. That is one reason I bring up white supremacists, anarchists, anti-government extremists. They are one of those groups. Sustained chaos breaks down societies.

Every time it dies down, there is some new event to send it roaring into flames again. Look at one recent event - misinformation about a suspect's suicide spread virally - kaboom! In this case, I think the misinformation was unintentional, but there have been cases of deliberate spreading of disinformation designed to provoke violence.

When you look at all this, imo, it's impossible to ask "what is their agenda" and "what will it take to make them stop"....it's no longer one entity.

And I don't know the answer. Obviously you have to restore law and order, but you can't do so in a way where you become part of the problem. And this is where I am treading into sticky territory that might get us annoyed at each other...but....you can't make this a partisan affair. It's dangerous, imo, to feed the idea that this is all partisan politics as the root cause. And I'm saying this as our president deliberately targets Dem cities, as Dem cities, for vitriol. In coverage of the civil rights riots or Rodney King - I don't recall seeing anything from presidents targeting cities in the manner.

IMO - once the top layer of our political leadership defines the problem as partisan (yes, Pelosi is part of it too), you can't a find a solution, because you have created a new problem. Them vs Us and in the process you aren't hearing the other side (because they are now the enemy instead of political opponents or fellow citizens). Ultimately that kind of division destroys.

Today...I don't know what the solution is.

FIRST you have to restore law and order and it CAN NOT be by private independent militias.

After that...well this is my wishlist.

You have to show justice is being done in a fair and unbiased and without retribution, way.

People must be listened to WITH RESPECT, not with labels - they aren't commies, racists, bums, thugs...they are citizens, they are concerned business folks being their livelihood destroyed, home owners, residents, those who have lost jobs, young people seeing no future and their country dismantled, protesters, minorities...local leadership must listen and transmit that to the upper levels. And they need to listen too.

There needs to be greater transparency at all levels - police and politicos. You can't continue the protection of "bad apples" and a petty crime should not equal a death sentence.

And what can you do with the internet/social media side?

And how can you protect our rights in the process?

No answer. And yes it's rambling.