raumdeuter:


In what name were Ziminsky and Grosskreutz carrying? In name of Unlawfulness and disorder?

Both weren't people on trial and I clearly don't subscribe to that, America has gun problems they shouldn't make it worse for themselves simple

CutieKing:


Yeah people can carry gun to public places if such state law permits it.those guns will have to be concealed and definitely not an AR under whatever situations.
This case wont end here....we shall all see what the final outcome would be .

Are you sure that the law of Wisconsin states it has to be concealed because some of the protesters were carrying guns openly

CutieKing:


Yeah people can carry gun to public places if such state law permits it.those guns will have to be concealed and definitely not an AR under whatever situations.
This case wont end here....we shall all see what the final outcome would be .

Where did you get this info from? Wisconsin gun laws permit open carry but require a gun permit for concealed carry

From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin
Concealed carry
Wisconsin is a shall-issue state for concealed carry licensing. As of November 1, 2011, Wisconsin residents may apply for a concealed carry license through the Wisconsin Department of Justice. The law allows Wisconsin to become the 49th state in the Union to make some provision for the concealed carry of firearms by normal citizens.[5][6][7]

Open carry
Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." However, the exceptions are: “when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun” or "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult."

Ironically, Gaige Grosskreutz, the guy whose arm got vapourized. was carrying a concealed pistol with expired license. I never heard you guys address that.

raumdeuter:


Are you sure that the law of Wisconsin states it has to be concealed because some of the protesters were carrying guns openly

It doesn't

BasedUsername:


Stop with this non-state actors narrative. The guy could've flown from across the country to be there and that still won't give people the rights to kill him.
There were others with guns at the protest and none of them were charged. Why? Because open-carry is legal in Wisconsin. Hell, the Black Panthers have conducted armed protests before. Why? Because they were carrying legally.
Now please answer this question, have you watched the raw footage of the events that transpired that night?

I don't need to see any video before I find something wrong in with guns around a protest scene with police there, bigger issue here is there are groups and I could call them non actors who are wanting to go to protests and shoot people, I won't even be surprised if Kyle Rittenhouse drew inspiration from them, America are playing with fire.

There's a link cutieking dropped here maybe you can read more from it and understand.

sanpipita:


Both weren't people on trial and I clearly don't subscribe to that, America has gun problems they shouldn't make it worse for themselves simple

Many people were carrying guns at the protest for whatever reason Law and order or Unlawfulnes and disorder. So him carrying gun is not the problem. Many protests have supporters and opponents carrying guns

sanpipita:



I don't need to see any video before I find something wrong in with guns around a protest scene with police there, bigger issue here is there are groups and I could call them non actors who are wanting to go to protests and shoot people, I won't even be surprised if Kyle Rittenhouse drew inspiration from them, America are playing with fire.

There's a link cutieking dropped here maybe you can read more from it and understand.

Many people were carrying guns at the protest including the guy whose arm was shot. People carry guns to protest regularly. As long as guns are legal.

raumdeuter:


Are you sure that the law of Wisconsin states it has to be concealed because some of the protesters were carrying guns openly

The criminal Ziminski was carrying opening. He was holding a gun when Rosenbaum was saying shoot me nigger. He fired the first shot too.

sanpipita:



I don't need to see any video before I find something wrong in with guns around a protest scene with police there, bigger issue here is there are groups and I could call them non actors who are wanting to go to protests and shoot people, I won't even be surprised if Kyle Rittenhouse drew inspiration from them, America are playing with fire.

There's a link cutieking dropped here maybe you can read more from it and understand.

OMG, this guy hasn't even watched the videos. This guy has just been parroting media talking heads and Twitter hot takes. How about seeing things for yourself and coming to your own goddamn conclusions?

You've literally had almost a whole year to go through most of the evidence in this case but you didn't. Yet, you believe you can a take stand on the issue and argue about it online.

Yuri Bezmenov said it best: "...exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization"

You are an intelligent, freethinking individual with access to all this information. So next time, act like one and take some goddamn initiative.

BasedUsername:


OMG, this guy hasn't even watched the videos. This guy has just been parroting media talking heads and Twitter hot takes. How about seeing things for yourself and coming to your own goddamn conclusions?

You've literally had almost a whole year to go through most of the evidence in this case but you didn't. Yet, you believe you can a take stand on the issue and argue about it online.

Yuri Bezmenov said it best: "...exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization"

You are an intelligent, freethinking individual with access to all this information. So next time, act like one and take some goddamn initiative.

Conclusion that carrying guns to protests should not be okay? you didn't even bother to answer me on that, there was even police around, why will anyone carry guns, do you even understand America has gun problems already? are you conservant with far right groups and what this judgement means for them? implications of these things go beyond forming smart with quotes.

sanpipita:


Conclusion that carrying guns to protests should not be okay? you didn't even bother to answer me on that, there was even police around, why will anyone carry guns, do you even understand America has gun problems already? are you conservant with far right groups and what this judgement means for them? implications of these things go beyond forming smart with quotes.

it has always been okay.

sanpipita:


Conclusion that carrying guns to protests should not be okay? you didn't even bother to answer me on that, there was even police around, why will anyone carry guns, do you even understand America has gun problems already? are you conservant with far right groups and what this judgement means for them? implications of these things go beyond forming smart with quotes.

You're digressing from the point. Rittenhouse is not the first person to bring a gun to a protest. Armed protests have always been legal in America. Like I previously said, the Black panthers have conducted an armed demonstration before. This case isn't going to suddenly make it legal because it has always been.

But my point still remains that you don't actually know what happened in Kenosha that night. You're only basing your opinions on what other people told you when you have access to the videos. So yes, the quote applies to you. The information and evidence are there for you to see yet you still choose to be spoonfed.

BasedUsername:


You're digressing from the point. Rittenhouse is not the first person to bring a gun to a protest. Armed protests have always been legal in America. Like I previously said, the Black panthers have conducted an armed demonstration before. This case isn't going to suddenly make it legal because it has always been.

But my point still remains that you don't actually know what happened in Kenosha that night. You're only basing your opinions on what other people told you when you have access to the videos. So yes, the quote applies to you. The information and evidence are there for you to see yet you still choose to be spoonfed.

I'm not digressing, Rittenhouse case brings up questions about vilgantism and guns in America, you can even call this a landmark case, he didn't just carry a gun,he shot people again I don't need to see a video to understand how bad such actions are, it's funny you think I based my opinion from 'what people told me' wonder which people are that.

sanpipita:


I'm not digressing, Rittenhouse case brings up questions about vilgantism and guns in America, you can even call this a landmark case, he didn't just carry a gun,he shot people again I don't need to see a video to understand how bad such actions are, it's funny you think I based my opinion from 'what people told me' wonder which people are that.

Let's establish some fundamentals, do you believe in the principle of self-defence?

4DOORSMOREWHORES

BasedUsername:


Let's establish some fundamentals, do you believe in the principle of self-defence?

Self defense with a good potential level of threat established, next?

raumdeuter:


Many people were carrying guns at the protest for whatever reason Law and order or Unlawfulnes and disorder. So him carrying gun is not the problem. Many protests have supporters and opponents carrying guns

When will you sef carry that your gun to protest?

I'm sure the Nigerian in you has more sense than that.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody wey open carry to hot atmosphere is responsible for what that gun does.

Ibime:
When will you sef carry that your gun to protest?
I'm sure the Nigerian in you has more sense than that.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody wey open carry to hot atmosphere is responsible for what that gun does.

I wont carry a gun to any protest, How many protest can I even join when I have seen police kill people in my presence in Nigeria for protesting

Do you think as a Nigerian I will be chasing a man carrying a gun? You see a man with a gun, you chase him attack him, what exactly do you expect in that situation

raumdeuter:


I wont carry a gun to any protest, How many protest can I even join when I have seen police kill people in my presence in Nigeria for protesting

Do you think as a Nigerian I will be chasing a man carrying a gun? You see a man with a gun, you chase him attack him, what exactly do you expect in that situation

I wonder.

sanpipita:


Self defense with a good potential level of threat established, next?

What would you determine as a good potential level of threat?

raumdeuter:


I wont carry a gun to any protest, How many protest can I even join when I have seen police kill people in my presence in Nigeria for protesting

Do you think as a Nigerian I will be chasing a man carrying a gun? You see a man with a gun, you chase him attack him, what exactly do you expect in that situation

Nobody wey get sense go even go protest, much less go to counter protest or defend businesses during protest. Talkless of carrying gun. That's what Insurance companies are for.

But I can chase down a gunman if someone shout that he shot someone. All die na die.

Ibime:
Nobody wey get sense go even go protest, much less go to counter protest or defend businesses during protest. Talkless of carrying gun. That's what Insurance companies are for.

But I can chase down a gunman if someone shout that he shot someone. All die na die.

I don't join protests especially ones wey guns dey involved

When you hear gunshot all run na away from the shooter unless you have a death wish. You don ever experience shooting and run towards the shooter when he is not targetting you specifically?

raumdeuter:


When you hear gunshot all run na away from the shooter unless you have a death wish. You don ever experience shooting and run towards the shooter when he is not targetting you specifically?

1995, Police shot one boy dead at my school interhouse sports at PH liberation stadium, see as we pick race.

But Kyle was actually gettable due to the dark night, and so many people to distract him, plus the length of his gun is not easily manouvreable if you get into close range.

Na Huber fückup, he go dey aim for knockout with skateboard when he could have easily grabbed this gun in a bout of egelege. Just jumping on this gun would have ended the matter cos others were coming in.

BasedUsername:

What would you determine as a good potential level of threat?

A threat that's established to be extremely injurious and harmful.

sanpipita:


A threat that's established to be extremely injurious and harmful.

Ok, so you're being chased by an angry mob, they are pelting you with objects as you run. You hear a gunshot from behind you (one of the people in the mob fired into the air). Turning back, you see a guy from the angry mob pulls ahead, charges at you and grabs the barrel of your weapon. You fire at him. Is this self-defence?

Second, the angry mob is still chasing and pelting you with objects. You trip and fall. Just then, two men surround you. One kicks you in the face. You fire at him but miss, causing the man to retreat. Is this self-defence?

Third, you're still on the ground. Of the two men who surrounded you, one has pulled away. The second man pounces on you and hits multiple times on the head with a skateboard. While during the attack, he steps into your line of fire and you take the shot. Is this self-defence?

Fourth, you're still on the ground. The other two threats have just been neutralized. You still have your gun out when a third man joins the fray with his arms raised. Suddenly, he reaches into his waistband, pulls out a pistol and points it at you. You shoot first. Is this self-defence?

Ibime:


1995, Police shot one boy dead at my school interhouse sports at PH liberation stadium, see as we pick race.

But Kyle was actually gettable due to the dark night, and so many people to distract him, plus the length of his gun is not easily manouvreable if you get into close range.

Na Huber fückup, he go dey aim for knockout with skateboard when he could have easily grabbed this gun in a bout of egelege. Just jumping on this gun would have ended the matter cos others were coming in.

That's what Rosenbaum tried to do, it ended in tears.

It seems like Kyle is quite skilled with a gun tbh. Also, both Rosenbaum and Huber didn't seem like the type to really think things through

Ibime:


1995, Police shot one boy dead at my school interhouse sports at PH liberation stadium, see as we pick race.

But Kyle was actually gettable due to the dark night, and so many people to distract him, plus the length of his gun is not easily manouvreable if you get into close range.

Na Huber fückup, he go dey aim for knockout with skateboard when he could have easily grabbed this gun in a bout of egelege. Just jumping on this gun would have ended the matter cos others were coming in.

For the MKO riots in 1993 94. I didn't go out because no parent will allow anyone out.

In 1998 MKO death riots I saw life MOPOL shooting students after some students seeing police with guns and decided to attack them. That was the last protest I went for.

Jumping his gun, he might be able to get some shots off and kill 2 but if many people jump him it will work.

sanpipita:

A threat that's established to be extremely injurious and harmful.

The threat Rittenhouse faced qualifies as potentially "extremely injurious and harmful". If he hadn't protected himself he'd have been lynched.

One might ask why he was there with a gun in the first place, but that would be questioning his Second Amendment Right I'm afraid, which, in the United States of America, is a no go.

I got to say I admire the defence. They made sure he was judged by his 'peers' by keeping blacks off the jury. One black person and this would have been a mistrial if the black person were strong enough, though the judge might have been able to accept a majority decision. He could have in UK at least.

BasedUsername:


Ok, so you're being chased by an angry mob, they are pelting you with objects as you run. You hear a gunshot from behind you (one of the people in the mob fired into the air). Turning back, you see a guy from the angry mob pulls ahead, charges at you and grabs the barrel of your weapon. You fire at him. Is this self-defence?

Second, the angry mob is still chasing and pelting you with objects. You trip and fall. Just then, two men surround you. One kicks you in the face. You fire at him but miss, causing the man to retreat. Is this self-defence?

Third, you're still on the ground. Of the two men who surrounded you, one has pulled away. The second man pounces on you and hits multiple times on the head with a skateboard. While during the attack, he steps into your line of fire and you take the shot. Is this self-defence?

Fourth, you're still on the ground. The other two threats have just been neutralized. You still have your gun out when a third man joins the fray with his arms raised. Suddenly, he reaches into his waistband, pulls out a pistol and points it at you. You shoot first. Is this self-defence?

How can touching barrel of gun becomes an excuse for self defense, did touching the barrel of gun immediately put me in dangerous position, mind you Rittenhouse shot four times which was even reckless.

Second and third shooting happened because mob were looking for the shooter, violence has been provoked after the first shooting, if I were to use the logic I see from you guys I will say the mob were acting in self defense from an active shooter.

I can agree with fourth shooting because pointing a gun at someone instantly puts them into a dangerous position of getting harmed

budaatum:


The threat Rittenhouse faced qualifies as potentially "extremely injurious and harmful". If he hadn't protected himself he'd have been lynched..

Correct. He has facing almost certain death at that moment and did what anyone with a gun would have done in that situation

One might ask why he was there with a gun in the first place, but that would be questioning his Second Amendment Right I'm afraid, which, in the United States of America, is a no go.

Everyone who went to the protest or any other protest armed with a gun probably believes in the 2nd amendment and that includes 2 of those he shot at

I got to say I admire the defence. They made sure he was judged by his 'peers' by keeping blacks off the jury. One black person and this would have been a mistrial if the black person were strong enough, though the judge might have been able to accept a majority decision. He could have in UK at least

The prosecution either had no case from the beginning or did a very shoddy job. Based on the evidence seen, arguments made. It would be hard to convict Kyle

budaatum:


The threat Rittenhouse faced qualifies as potentially "extremely injurious and harmful". If he hadn't protected himself he'd have been lynched.

One might ask why he was there with a gun in the first place, but that would be questioning his Second Amendment Right I'm afraid, which, in the United States of America, is a no go.

I got to say I admire the defence. They made sure he was judged by his 'peers' by keeping blacks off the jury. One black person and this would have been a mistrial if the black person were strong enough, though the judge might have been able to accept a majority decision. He could have in UK at least.

That was because he provoked violence, let's say he was lynched would Huber and co be freed on self defense too? shooting happened at different times and not even in one sequence and everything is seen as self defense even when the shooting was reckless.

sanpipita:


How can touching barrel of gun becomes an excuse for self defense, did touching the barrel of gun immediately put me in dangerous position, mind you Rittenhouse shot four times which was even reckless.

Second and third shooting happened because mob were looking for the shooter, violence has been provoked after the first shooting, if I were to use the logic I see from you guys I will say the mob were acting in self defense from an active shooter.

I can agree with fourth shooting because pointing a gun at someone instantly puts them into a dangerous position of getting harmed

You're telling me that when an angry mob is chasing you and one of them catches up with you and tries to grab your weapon, it is not reasonable to believe that your weapon may be used against you, or that you being disarmed will make you an easy target for the angry mob and your assailant who are currently chasing you down with violent intent.

Secondly, all this can be avoided if you will just watch the damn videos