packgrad said:

---

Some more info on the people shot by the teenager. One of 3.

---

2020 has taught us all ALOT of things... mostly terrible things, but one thing Ive learned is there are a TON of sex offenders in this Country.... and at all levels of society. Sickening.

That's the truth!

Thought it would fit here. Raleigh is under curfew both Friday and Saturday night ahead of protests.

wolfman18 said:

---

Thought it would fit here. Raleigh is under curfew both Friday and Saturday night ahead of protests.

---

****ing stupid. The woke need a reckoning.

packgrad said:

---

Some more info on the people shot by the teenager. One of 3.

---

There is also video of him taunting the kid a little bit earlier. He said and I quote, "Go ahead and shoot me, then he called him the "N" word. Julio Rosas who is one of the citizen reporters has the video on his twitter feed. You will have to scroll down some to the night of the 25th. He also has a close up view of one of Rittenhouse's attackers in the street who almost had his arm blown off. This attacker(not the skateboarder, who died) also had a handgun and was coming up to execute Kyle in the street. That video is hidden by twitter for graphic content, but it's there.

https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11

Bas2020 said:

---

**crickets**

---

The dude who did it was arrested and charged with murder.

That's the whole crux of the issue here--cops are performing extrajudicial killings on average about 2.5 times per day in this country (about 1000 per year). On a per capita basis, they kill more black people than white people, but they kill a ****load of white people, too.

Often these are cops with a dozen or more complaints against them who are protected by unions. Because of qualified immunity, they are very rarely charged. Whackos like Dave Grossman promote violence in special trainings that are sanctioned by police departments.

There are absolutely times when a police officer might need to use his or her firearm in a dangerous situation. But that doesn't mean that any time they feel threatened, they ought to be allowed to do so. People are protesting because there is no current mechanism for thoughtful review or discipline in these situations.

Here is a story with the breakdown and pictures of the guy with the gun and the skateboarder hitting Rittenhouse in the head.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/leftists-fatally-shot-wounded-in-kenosha-are-canonized-as-peaceful-loving-but-videos-photos-seem-to-tell-different-stories

James Henderson said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

---

It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.

Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it

---

You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.

I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.

---

Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.

---

My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.

If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.

I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.

Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.



He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.

It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?

---

Yes...likewise, if 17 yo kid who had no business taking a gun to a cauldron of anger hadn't been there, or hadn't been carrying a gun, and had allowed the authorities to do their job (for good or bad), he wouldn't have ruined his own life and killed a couple of folks.

---

In my reading up on taht 17 year old, he drove a town he worked in, 30 minutes from his home, to help protect business from rioters and looters (no clue why those things are happening, but okay). There are photos of him cleaning grafitti off those businesses.

Honestly, I'd probably be proud of my 17 year old son for doing those things above, if true.

It's sad this kid may have ruined his own life because looters chose to chase after him and he shot them.

---

You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.

I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.

GoPack2008 said:

---

Bas2020 said:

---

**crickets**

---

The dude who did it was arrested and charged with murder.

That's the whole crux of the issue here--cops are performing extrajudicial killings on average about 2.5 times per day in this country (about 1000 per year). On a per capita basis, they kill more black people than white people, but they kill a ****load of white people, too.

Often these are cops with a dozen or more complaints against them who are protected by unions. Because of qualified immunity, they are very rarely charged. Whackos like Dave Grossman promote violence in special trainings that are sanctioned by police departments.

There are absolutely times when a police officer might need to use his or her firearm in a dangerous situation. But that doesn't mean that any time they feel threatened, they ought to be allowed to do so. People are protesting because there is no current mechanism for thoughtful review or discipline in these situations.

---

I agree with most of that actually but why cant we do multiple things at once? Talk about multiple issues at once?

Why is violent murder against innocent people being ignored? Why are major American cities engulfed in extreme violence and nobody gives a damn?

People should be smart enough to talk about both issues, but the left totally ignores the other violent acts that are happening by the thousands, and focusing on 15-20 police involved shootings per year in which maybe 4-5 are questionable. Can the general public even name the white people involved in police shootings that have died? many of which were in exact if not worse circumstances that the highly public cases of this year?

Instead of it being an honest discussion about over aggressive cops its turned into a race discussion, when race has nothing to do with it.

IF the cop that shot Blake is a racist by default then so are the black men that kill white people like Cannon Hinnant, Veronica Baker, and the college student and her father in South Carolina. See how that works?

GoPack2008 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

---

It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.

Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it

---

You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.

I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.

---

Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.

---

My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.

If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.

I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.

Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.



He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.

It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?

---

Yes...likewise, if 17 yo kid who had no business taking a gun to a cauldron of anger hadn't been there, or hadn't been carrying a gun, and had allowed the authorities to do their job (for good or bad), he wouldn't have ruined his own life and killed a couple of folks.

---

In my reading up on taht 17 year old, he drove a town he worked in, 30 minutes from his home, to help protect business from rioters and looters (no clue why those things are happening, but okay). There are photos of him cleaning grafitti off those businesses.

Honestly, I'd probably be proud of my 17 year old son for doing those things above, if true.

It's sad this kid may have ruined his own life because looters chose to chase after him and he shot them.

---

You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.

I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.

---

"Some"? I'd say there is a whole lot. We have a poster here saying he'd be proud of his son. That's EXACTLY the problem. Recklessness. This isn't Dodge City...and sadly, the folks who get shot up can't just get up when the director yells "cut" like in the movies. I'm not sure a lot of the fools injecting themselves into these scenes (or the parents/family encouraging them) realize that.

GoPack2008 said:

---

You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.

I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.

---

Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.

The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

GoPack2008 said:

---

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

---

Lol. Yes.

Bas2020 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Bas2020 said:

---

**crickets**

---

The dude who did it was arrested and charged with murder.

That's the whole crux of the issue here--cops are performing extrajudicial killings on average about 2.5 times per day in this country (about 1000 per year). On a per capita basis, they kill more black people than white people, but they kill a ****load of white people, too.

Often these are cops with a dozen or more complaints against them who are protected by unions. Because of qualified immunity, they are very rarely charged. Whackos like Dave Grossman promote violence in special trainings that are sanctioned by police departments.

There are absolutely times when a police officer might need to use his or her firearm in a dangerous situation. But that doesn't mean that any time they feel threatened, they ought to be allowed to do so. People are protesting because there is no current mechanism for thoughtful review or discipline in these situations.

---

I agree with most of that actually but why cant we do multiple things at once? Talk about multiple issues at once?

Why is violent murder against innocent people being ignored? Why are major American cities engulfed in extreme violence and nobody gives a damn?

People should be smart enough to talk about both issues, but the left totally ignores the other violent acts that are happening by the thousands, and focusing on 15-20 police involved shootings per year in which maybe 4-5 are questionable. Can the general public even name the white people involved in police shootings that have died? many of which were in exact if not worse circumstances that the highly public cases of this year?

Instead of it being an honest discussion about over aggressive cops its turned into a race discussion, when race has nothing to do with it.

IF the cop that shot Blake is a racist by default then so are the black men that kill white people like Cannon Hinnant, Veronica Baker, and the college student and her father in South Carolina. See how that works?

---

You're injecting an unrelated topic and demanding it be talked about simultaneously.

You should actually consider your own admonition to talk about two things at once:
Police violence is a problem period, AND it disproportionality affects black people on a per capita basis. Both are true and it's possible to talk about both.

packgrad said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

---

Lol. Yes.

---

I was actually sincerely askinghow can a 17 legally possess a firearm? Having never tried to own a firearm at that age, what's the mechanism to do it, in Illinois specifically?

This makes it seem like no, but I'm not an expert at all.

fords.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-in-illinois/

GoPack2008 said:

---

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

---

Not that I've found. Plus he was driven across state line while illegally possessing a fire arm

Glasswolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

---

Not that I've found. Plus he was driven across state line while illegally possessing a fire arm

---

You know this to be fact or are you speculating?

GoPack2008 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

---

Lol. Yes.

---

I was actually sincerely askinghow can a 17 legally possess a firearm? Having never tried to own a firearm at that age, what's the mechanism to do it?

---

It varies a lot by state. I actually thought this was illegal too, but from what I could gather, in Wisconsin, you can carry a long rifle or shotgun at 16. A handgun at 18. Unsure about purchasing rights, but I imagine a parent could buy it for him.

IseWolf22 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

---

Lol. Yes.

---

I was actually sincerely askinghow can a 17 legally possess a firearm? Having never tried to own a firearm at that age, what's the mechanism to do it?

---

It varies a lot by state. I actually thought this was illegal too, but from what I could gather, in Wisconsin, you can carry a long rifle or shotgun at 16. A handgun at 18. Unsure about purchasing rights, but I imagine a parent could buy it for him.

---

This is where it starts to get confusing for me, as I believe he's an Illinois resident, and I'm not sure exactly how that could impact things.

Obviously he's charged with murder in Wisconsin, but I'm wondering if there was violation of Illinois laws too.

IseWolf22 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

---

Lol. Yes.

---

I was actually sincerely askinghow can a 17 legally possess a firearm? Having never tried to own a firearm at that age, what's the mechanism to do it?

---

It varies a lot by state. I actually thought this was illegal too, but from what I could gather, in Wisconsin, you can carry a long rifle or shotgun at 16. A handgun at 18. Unsure about purchasing rights, but I imagine a parent could buy it for him.

---

Correct. Varies state by state. For reference, I've had guns since I was 12 or 13.

GoPack2008 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

^The young man was 17 and in possession of a firearm.

Is there any way in which that is legal?

---

Lol. Yes.

---

I was actually sincerely askinghow can a 17 legally possess a firearm? Having never tried to own a firearm at that age, what's the mechanism to do it?

---

It varies a lot by state. I actually thought this was illegal too, but from what I could gather, in Wisconsin, you can carry a long rifle or shotgun at 16. A handgun at 18. Unsure about purchasing rights, but I imagine a parent could buy it for him.

---

This is where it starts to get confusing for me, as I believe he's an Illinois resident, and I'm not sure exactly how that could impact things.

Obviously he's charged with murder in Wisconsin, but I'm wondering if there was violation of Illinois laws too.

---

Why would there be a violation of Illinois laws? He wasn't in Illinois.

James Henderson said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

---

It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.

Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it

---

You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.

I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.

---

Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.

---

My point is nearly all of these situations, B won't happen without A.

If you're not chasing and thorwing things at a guy who has a AR, you won't get shot. But if you do, you put yourself in that position to get shot.

I don't know if the kid will get off on self-defense or not, but as you can see in that video above, he likely felt in danger in both instances.

Same thing with Jacob Blake. The cops were called out due to a 911 call about him. Yet we're being told he was trying to break up a fight. The cops tased him, tried to get him to the ground, and he had a knife in his possession, as you see here.



He then ignores their demands and proceeds to walk around and reach into his car.

It reaches a point of what is a cop supposed to do?

---

Tase him
Tackle him
Fire a warning shot
Not shoot him SEVEN times in the back

Come on.

Wonder if it was legal for the criminal with the gun to own a gun and carry it in a riot?

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.

I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.

---

Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.

The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.

---

Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.

Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.

It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.

packgrad said:

---

Wonder if it was legal for the criminal with the gun to own a gun and carry it in a riot?

---

Which sex offender are you talking about ? Hard to keep up at this point .

Bas2020 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Wonder if it was legal for the criminal with the gun to own a gun and carry it in a riot?

---

Which sex offender are you talking about ? Hard to keep up at this point .

---

I know. Nobody is concerned about those criminals carrying weapons for some reason. Just the white teenager. We even have one comparing the police attempting to arrest a sex offender to a teenager trying to protect himself from a violent mob. Lunacy.

GoPack2008 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.

I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.

---

Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.

The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.

---

Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.

Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.

It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.

---

Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.

Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.

I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.

---

Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.

The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.

---

Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.

Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.

It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.

---

Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.

Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.

---

That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.

This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???

Jacob Blake never shot anyone.

GoPack2008 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.

I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.

---

Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.

The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.

---

Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.

Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.

It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.

---

Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.

Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.

---

That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.

This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???

Jacob Blake never shot anyone.

---

This guy didn't resist arrest. Pretty simple.

Nm

GoPack2008 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

You wouldn't let your son be a cop but you'd be proud of him for being a vigilante and carrying a gun underage? I'm confused.

I'm sorry, but why does ANY civilian feel the need or responsibility or capability to go to a massive protest, carry a firearm, and "protect" things? It's total insanity. And 17 year olds aren't known to be the most sensible actors, so there's absolutely some responsibility on the parents here.

---

Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.

The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.

---

Let's be honest: Militias are gangs.

Nobody goes across state lines with a rifle to protect anythingthey are looking to get into something.

It speaks volumes that we are giving more thought to this kid's motives than those of Jacob Blake. It's actually the entire point.

---

Your not being honest with your comment. Not all militias are gangs. It's in the Constitution. He wasn't the only one there packing. There were other militia members too. They said they were there to protect property.

Jacob Blake had warrants against him. He did not obey the police officers and paid the price. Oh and he had knife too. They did not shoot him because he was black. They shot him because he was a threat and the officer knew he had warrants against him. And don't try to paint George Floyd as a saint. He had been in prison many times including put a gun to a pregnant women's belly during a crime. If you don't want the police to shoot you, don't commit a crime and don't resist when they try to arrest you for those crimes. Pretty simple to do.

---

That's a very interesting read of the second amendment, which allows for a well regulated militia. These yahoos don't count.

This guy shot people and the cops WALKED BY HIM. But they HAVE to shoot Jacob Blake???

Jacob Blake never shot anyone.

---

The cops were responding the the shooting. Rittenhouse was trying to surrender. He walked right up to the armored vehicle with his arms raised. They did not know he was involved. I believe the National Guard is considered a form of militia, but I will check on that.

Jacob Blake's girlfriend called the police. He had taken her keys from her and was being belligerent. He had warrants(plural) out for his arrest. He wrestled with the officers. They tried to taze him and it didn't work. He reached inside the car and had a knife. He didn't have to die. All he had to do was comply with the officers.

Wolfblood said:

---

I always hear about how law enforcement should look to descalate these situations, but I hardly ever hear the same for those being arrested.

Why isn't resisting arrest strongly discouraged and condemned by racial justice proponents, politicians and the media?

Who benefits from resisting arrest?

The person being arrested? Law enforcement? Innocent bystanders?

It seems like a no win situation for everyone involved. I just feel like it should be included in the conversation when discussing these situations.

---

Because police are supposed to be trained professionals while perps are... criminals. You tend to hold people in positions of authority to a higher standard.

I'm all for more police, better funded police, better trained police, etc. Many have a really hard job. But I want all that to come with liability for their conduct.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Because the government agencies called with protecting stuff are not doing their jobs. The police are either told to stand down or are overwhelmed. Had the Governor of Wisconsin brought in the National Guard after the first night of protests then this doesn't happen. Unfortunately it's going to happen more. People are going to defend their property with their 2nd Amendment rights. If the crap starts happening in my neighborhood, I will be locked, ready, and loaded.

The young man was part of a group of militia who's job was to protect property. I don't see how they can get him for anything but manslaughter and that will be a tough road too. He was in fear of his life. The police are not going to show up, so I cannot blame him for defending himself. If more evidence comes out that puts him in a different light, then maybe they can get the murder charge but with what I have seen, self defense is his right and it will be hard to convict him.

---

Does this kid have parents?

What parent allows their son to go "protect stuff" and potentially get killed or shoot and kill somebody? It's stuff. What, he's proving a point? That the "rioters haven't won?" Who cares about stuff, or proving a point when your boy is walking out the door and maybe not coming back?

I don't care that the police are allegedly not doing their jobs. It's property. Inanimate **** that doesn't matter when compared to multiple lives including your kid's. It's why you have insurance. It's not worth someone maybe losing a life over.

If my 17 year old was grabbing his gun and trying to go help "protect stuff" from rioters he'd have to shoot me first to get out the door.