[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6609

File: 1598845583418.jpg (85.09 KB, 800x449, 800:449, Portland-Police-Officer-At….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In a horrific incident in Portland, the rioting that has taken place for multiple weeks (partly alongside the, it must be said, the separate peaceful protests) escalated to the point that a far right militant was fatally shot by a person or persons unknown. Details are highly sketchy as the police are just starting their investigation Sadly, they don't appear to have that much evidence yet to go on.

>(Details) https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/30/907699226/1-killed-in-portland-amid-clashes-between-pro-trump-caravan-and-counterprotester

Do you expect that as time gets closer to the election, street violence between the far right and others will amp up? From regular people just in the wrong place at the wrong time to Black Lives Matter protesters to far left types actively looking for a fight (and others), incidents will fill up the news as the general mood of the country sours?

Is the danger of political killing exaggerated? Yes, one person died over the weekend, and every death is a tragedy, but this is still viewed as an aberration and the general public doesn't seem to expect it to become a 'new normal' for every day or so somebody to lose their life because of ideology.

Personally, I think that outright civil war or something like that is rather unlikely, but I'm concerned about a slow but sure rise of victims getting hurt or even killed in random-ish events. But maybe that's just falling for 'if it bleeds, it leads' news coverage that stresses division over people getting along?

 No.6610

>>6609
I think it'll definately ramp up. I don't really like labeling people as "far right" or "sjw thugs" or whatever, i think each side has a valid reason to fight, which is why i think it will go on awhile. The protesters/rioters have tried peaceful protest about police brutality for decades now with little to show for it, so i can see why they would start to shift the mindset from a protest to  a war, especially as police often start shit by beating people or using tear gas before anyone has posed a real threat to them. I can understand wanting to put your foot down and fight in that situation. I can understand the police, too. You're outnumbered 100-1, and a pistol isn't great with those number in that kind of quarters, the potential danger is real, especially when you see the protesters start to mobilize for war. I can respect the vigilantes, too. I can understand wanting to stand up to defend local business that, evidence shows, might otherwise be robbed and destroyed.

This will escalate until we find a way to resolve the issues. Protesters will, at the very least, need to point their hostility purely towards the police and leave local buisinesses/homes/public buildings very much not on fire. Cops will need to learn how to be less brutal, hurt people less, take less life, and actually face real consequences when they do. I really don't see anything wrong with the vigilantes so far. They shot someone who was beating them with a skateboard. Not sure what you expected to happen there. I don't have sympathy for violent thugs, which a person beating people with a skateboard not in self-defense qualifies as to me.

 No.6611

I feel obligated to update this since I just read that police have made arrests in the death of the Portland victim who got shot Saturday (which seems to contradict earlier reports of them having no evidence/leads, but I guess that's the nature of these rapid events).

>(Story) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/portland-1-killed-trump-supporters-clash-blm-protesters-200830082303742.html

Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden has also decried the death while blaming the current President for fanning the flames of domestic conflict and encouraging violence generally.

 No.6612

File: 1598855830563.png (512.02 KB, 510x606, 85:101, 1597634300194.png) ImgOps Google

>>6609
>Do you expect that as time gets closer to the election, street violence between the far right and others will amp up?
Yes.  Personally, I've started carrying my Beretta most of the time when I go outside.  (I've never carried before, despite having my license for several years, so I'm carrying with an empty chamber until I get at least a few weeks of practice.  At least for now, I'm much more worried about having an accidental discharge than I am about needing to use my pistol in self-defense.)

>Personally, I think that outright civil war or something like that is rather unlikely
I agree.  There are a relatively few number of people on both sides who want to start shit, but most people don't want to kill other people.  So, I think it will be more on the scale of gang violence than a full-blown civil war.  Plus, people today are very dependent on infrastructure.  If trucking/shipping is disrupted, many people in cities and suburbs would start to literally starve to death if they don't have a good stockpile of non-perishable food.  It would make the corona toilet-paper shortage look like nothing.  A disruption of water supplies would be even worse.  Even a disruption to the electrical grid could cause hunger and malnutrition due to lack of refrigeration of perishable foods.  So, I don't think there is much real appetite for civil war on either side.  Most people know that war is hell.  The most likely scenario for a civil war would be if the election results are contested.  And even that I think would be resolved without a great lot of bloodshed or destruction.  If Trump tries to stay in power despite losing, I think he would be quickly removed by either federal agents loyal to the Constitution or by armed citizens.

 No.6613

>>6610
Why not blame the far right militants? They deliberately go into towns that aren't their own, point guns at people, and commit provocative actions from macing random passersby to running over pedestrians with their vehicles and more. We also have decades of rhetoric from the far right in the U.S. about using weapons against blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims, et cetera.

In the specific case of the vigilante who got arrested in the U.S. Midwest, reports appear that he was the aggressor who attacked multiple people. The victims defended themselves, including the guy with the skateboard, and the vigilante shot them in response to their self-defense. Not sure, to use your words, what you expected to happen there. If a neo-Nazi type monster was attacking  somebody near me, and the monster had a gun, I'd hope that I'd have the courage to defend the victim by any means.

 No.6615

File: 1598856722202.webm (2.14 MB, 1598578837885.webm)

>>6613
>Why not blame the far right militants?
Did Brave Gazelle say he doesn't?

Personally, I'd blame those who go out looking for a fight, but I wouldn't blame anyone who merely wants to stop arson and other lawlessness.

>>6613
>In the specific case of the vigilante who got arrested in the U.S. Midwest, reports appear that he was the aggressor who attacked multiple people. The victims defended themselves, including the guy with the skateboard, and the vigilante shot them in response to their self-defense.
Huh?  You talking about Kyle Rittenhouse?  Because that's not what the videos show.  Kyle tried to retreat and only fired at people who continued to assault him after retreated.

Let me copy from https://www.ponychan.net/ef/res/407619.html#407777 :
"""
He shot 3 specific individuals who were assaulting him:
(1) The short bald guy (this is the most questionable of the shootings given the lack of clear video evidence, but the evidence I've seen strongly suggests self-defense)
(2) The guy who hit him with a skateboard and grabbed his rifle
(3) The guy who initially put his hands in the air but then advanced toward him while pulling out a handgun
...
Here is video of the first shooting: Kenosha Riot Shooting: All Angles Synced Together with Timeline (Rioters Killed) [ https://youtu.be/neUnhYO2Ehc?t=63 ]
You can see the bald guy in the red shirt saying "Shoot me, nigga" -- he is the first guy who gets shot, after he chases Kyle and throws an unidentified object at him.  Note the first gunshot (at time 1:17 in the YouTube video) is from another person's pistol, not from the Kyle, then a few seconds later Kyle fires 4 shots from his rifle.
"""

 No.6616

File: 1598856864608.webm (965.63 KB, 1598644458607.webm)

And here is video of the guy who pulls a handgun on Kyle and loses part of his arm.

 No.6617

>>6615
>>6616
As incredibly stupid and wrong as saying "Shoot me, nigga" is at somebody with a gun, how does that justify actually being shot? I don't see Kyle getting attacked. I see Kyle doing the attacking.

 No.6618

And then after the "Shoot me" dude is wounded, there's a clear self-defense situation in which the other two individuals are fearing for their life against Kyle. One hits Kyle with the skateboard, justified, and attempts to grab the rifle, also justified, and the other fellow pulls out his own gun, which also seems justified.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this point since it's still going through law enforcement and isn't the main topic of the thread, though, I guess.

 No.6619

>>6617
>I don't see Kyle getting attacked.
Unfortunately the video in https://youtu.be/neUnhYO2Ehc?t=63 isn't very clear, but if you look carefully, you can see Rosenbaum throw something at Kyle and then start chasing him, accompanied by a few other men.  Kyle turns around when he hears the pistol shot.  I've heard that Rosenbaum attempts to steal Kyle's rifle, but I don't have any good video evidence of this at the moment.  I agree this is the most questionable of Kyle's shootings, given the lack of video that we have.

>in which the other two individuals are fearing for their life against Kyle.
Um, that's not how the law works.  If someone is retreating and is not an imminent threat, then you can't chase them down and use deadly force against them.

 No.6620

>>6619
But Kyle was an imminent threat to those people. Hell, he went out of state illegally carrying for the expressed purposes of threatening people with his weapon in the first place. His very presence was a provocation. And then, without fearing for his life, Kyle shoots somebody dead. Those in the vicinity immediately are afraid of getting shot dead as well and defend themselves against Kyle, an immediate danger. Pretty clear-cut case to me.

I'd expand on this even more, but I found a pretty great take-down that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/conservatives-defend-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse.html

And, yeah, like... we probably should cut this off shortly, because this is not a "Kyle Rittenhouse: What's Your Opinion?" thread. Not that it's not an important case. But it's not the topic.

 No.6621

File: 1598860567750.jpg (33.75 KB, 700x345, 140:69, 9-Chat-dort.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6620
I might make a new thread about the Rittenhouse incident later this week, but I'm going to sleep now.  Good night, Generous Hare!

 No.6622

>>6617

Kyle is on the ground because he got attacked. Do you think he was just sitting there for no reason?

Also, take a good look at the arm he shot. What's the guy holding? That looks like a pistol to me. If you go on the offense while brandishing your pistol, you're announcing your intent to kill.

 No.6623

>>6622

Oh, and additionally, look at all the other people. They were all going in the direction of Kyle before he shot. These people were intending to mob him and kill him out in the streets.

 No.6624

>>6609
>Do you expect that as time gets closer to the election, street violence between the far right and others will amp up?
Not so much the "far right" as "far left" and others, but, yes, absolutely.
The riots have already demonstrated that these people unfortunately have no issue using fear to push their political agenda. That they are fine with attacking innocent people.
They've already essentially said that the democratic process we have doesn't work for their ends. Unless some crazy happenstance goes off in the next couple of months, it's definitely going to get worse.

>Is the danger of political killing exaggerated?
Yes, but I would say the danger of political violence is underappreciated.
People tend to focus on death.

Now, I very much suspect it will continue to get more common, if things are allowed to continue. But, in the mean time, I'd be more worried my livelihood getting destroyed, or getting assaulted in the street. Assuming you live in these cities, anyway.
Obviously, it is a localized issue.

 No.6625

>>6613
The left alsogoes in to towns that aren't their own. I'm skeptical of the claims of brandishing, but I can say for sure Antifa's maced people for ages already since the early days of college campuses.
I'm skeptical of the supposed car attacks people claim. I've not seen evidence for it, as far as intentional attempts at killing people. As to weapons rhetoric, we've had the same from communists for decades as well.
I'm more concerned with them, as they at least seem to have some support, as opposed to next to none at all.

>In the specific case of the vigilante who got arrested in the U.S. Midwest, reports appear that he was the aggressor who attacked multiple people.
Do you mean Kyle Rittenhouse?
I'm going to have to put some extreme doubt there.
Every single instance where he shot someone, he was actively trying to run away first.
Moreover, as I understand it, two of the individuals had specifically threatened and behaved aggressively prior to the shooting event.

Chasing someone down and bashing their skull with a skateboard is not "defending themselves". If you have to chase someone, you cannot claim self defense.
If you're having to swing a skateboard at someone on the ground who was actively trying to get away from you, you are the aggressor, not the party actively trying to flee.

 No.6626

>>6617
No; Chasing someone down until they can't flee, and then trying to grab for their gun, especially when someone's firing a gun in the background, is what justifies self defense.

> I don't see Kyle getting attacked. I see Kyle doing the attacking.
Then I would suggest you did not actually look in to the matter.
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1298704864843685890

 No.6627

>>6618
>there's a clear self-defense situation in which the other two individuals are fearing for their life against Kyle
If you are pursuing someone, you absolutely cannot claim self defense.
Kyle was running away from them. They were running towards him.
This is objectively not self defense.
You can argue it's a form of vigilantism, that it's valid as they feared he was a threat to others, but it is 100% not self defense.

Moreover; That's their mistake.
If they were foolish enough to jump the gun and attack someone on the ground, it's better they die than the person they're attacking, I say.
>>6620
>But Kyle was an imminent threat to those people.
If he's actively running away from you, he is absolutely not an "imminent threat".

It's precisely the same problem I have with the Jacob Blake shooting. He had a knife out, yes. But the fact that he's got his back to the officer, and appears to be trying to flee the scene, suggests there is not cause for an "imminent danger".
If they shot him when he was going at the officers, that'd be different, but shooting him in the back, like chasing someone down and beating them over the head with a skateboard, is not justified.

Someone who is "afraid" of getting shot does not actively chase after the shooter.
That is not the action of someone 'afraid' of getting shot.

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1298531815649665025

 No.6632

>>6609
>Do you expect that as time gets closer to the election, street violence between the far right and others will amp up?

I don't think it will amp up relative to the election's proximity.  I do expect it to ramp up.  It will liably continue to ramp up further after the election, as well.

>Is the danger of political killing exaggerated?
I don't think anyone's particularly hyping it up, so in that sense no.  If you go to a protest with extremists, violence is possible and you might get killed.  Otherwise I'd wager there's almost no risk, really.

 No.6639

>>6609
Joyfully, all you have to do is shoot someone to create a pretext of self-defense while shooting two more.

And be white.  Thats an important element to self-defense claims.  Black people are by definition threats.

How is open-carrying a high-capacity rifle to a protest, not prima facie evidence of intent to shoot people?  The biggest threat to MY right to carry arms and defend my own life is alt-right pieces of shit who pretend packing rifles to riots is legitimate self-defense.

Second Amendment folks should lynch this fucking criminal before he gets to make law.

Piece of fucking shit.  I wish i had his bullet in me so i could justify biting his worthless adams apple out with my own teeth.

 No.6640

>>6627
If some asshole shoots someone next to me and runs away with his gun, i have every reason to believe he's going to turn and fire as soon as he's clear of my grasping hands.

People who want to have a right of self-defense should not advocate for hate killing sprees.

Bring a gun to shoot me, you better bring a fucking 50 cal or i'll take your cowardly ass out with my bledding bare hands.

 No.6644

>>6640
He didn't "shoot someone next" to anyone.
The pedophile chased after him, before he got shot. Nobody else was in the immediate area. Some people came up after the fact, sure, but you describe events that factually did not happen.

>People who want to have a right of self-defense should not advocate for hate killing sprees.
He didn't.
This is a lie.

>Bring a gun to shoot me, you better bring a fucking 50 cal or i'll take your cowardly ass out with my bledding bare hands.
He didn't do this.
Again; This is a flat out lie.

 No.6645

File: 1599176502251.png (3.39 MB, 1377x907, 1377:907, NFA Coalition.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>6639
>How is open-carrying a high-capacity rifle to a protest, not prima facie evidence of intent to shoot people?
You mean like the Not Fucking Around Coalition?
Or do we not assume hostile intent when they're black?

>The biggest threat to MY right to carry arms and defend my own life is alt-right pieces of shit who pretend packing rifles to riots is legitimate self-defense.
He's not "alt-right". There's been no evidence to suggest he was. This seems to be solely racial prejudice on your part, for the crime of being white and being armed.
Perhaps it's best to stow the bigotry, and look at things as the evidence depicts.

Plenty of black people have been showing up to protests with rifles. As they are perfectly within their rights to do so. This is not a solely 'white' thing as you seem to presume.

>Second Amendment folks should lynch this fucking criminal before he gets to make law.
The 2nd explicitly protects the right to self defense.
You do not lose that right just because you happen to be white.

The video evidence of the assaults demonstrate that it was clear self defense. Every single time Kyle was attacked, he was actively trying to flee.

 No.6646

>>6640
>If some asshole shoots someone next to me and runs away with his gun,
Kyle didn't run away immediately.  He stuck around and made a phone call.  He only ran away when he felt endangered by an approaching crowd of people.  In some states, you have a legal obligation to flee instead of standing your ground if you can do safely.

>People who want to have a right of self-defense should not advocate for hate killing sprees.
Not sure what you mean by "hate killing spree" or how it is relevant to this thread.

>Bring a gun to shoot me, you better bring a fucking 50 cal or i'll take your cowardly ass out with my bledding bare hands.
Caliber isn't everything.  A .243 Winchester round (kinetic energy typically 2,700 -- 2,800 joules) is more powerful than a .50 AE round (kinetic energy typically 1,950 -- 2,200 joules).  

 No.6647

>>6645
Huh, that's odd. For some reason the name seems to have glitched here. I'm the same as >>6644

>>6646
Here's a video for that.
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1298704864843685890
It seems he starts leaving after some shouts are heard. One voice seems to say something along the lines of 'get the fuck out of here', but it's hard to tell.
You can also see in this video embedded, at around about 3:30, he goes straight towards the police when he does start leaving.

 No.6648

>>6645
Showing up with a rifle not to protest or demonstrate but "to protect property" makes him alt-right.

Yes, that makes me a racist.  Good reasoning there, site rule violator.

 No.6649

>>6644
>pedophile

Is there any basis for that or is that just you?  I hadnt heard about any pedophilia.

 No.6650

>>6647
>Huh, that's odd. For some reason the name seems to have glitched here.
Maybe there's a bug in the code...

>>6648
>Showing up with a rifle not to protest or demonstrate but "to protect property" makes him alt-right.
"Alt-right" is pretty nebulous term, but usually it means more than literally "anti-communist" or "against the notion of private property".  What exactly do you mean by "alt-right"?

>>6649
>Is there any basis for that or is that just you?
Rosenbaum served 12 years in prison for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.

 No.6652

File: 1599178716166.jpg (37.62 KB, 600x350, 12:7, black-panthers-seattle-196….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6648
What, so everyone who dares think that attacking innocent people and destroying their livelihoods is wrong, is "alt right" to you?

You're the one who decided to point out his race, and make that a major point of contention. And I'm quite certain you would not say that the NFA Coalition are out "intending to shoot people" as you framed it.
It would suggest some bigotry to me.
>>6649
Here
https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556
This is the one Donut pulled up, anyway. As far as I am aware, this is the guy, and this is what has been circulating.

 No.6654

File: 1599179743605.gif (1.58 MB, 500x281, 500:281, 1385443290714.gif) ImgOps Google

>>6652
>This is the one Donut pulled up
Donut?

 No.6655

>>6654
Donutoperator.
He does a lot of youtube videos on shootings.

 No.6656

I realize that this might come across as a dick move, but since this thread wasn't intended to be about Kyle Rittenhouse though seemingly has become so anyways, maybe the thread should be closed and locked?

And then a proper thread specifically about the man can be made that's listed properly?

 No.6658

File: 1599182808046.jpg (84.95 KB, 736x986, 368:493, 8f7374eee7c309f1eb10fe3d93….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6656
>maybe the thread should be closed and locked?
"Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with" (>>3)

>And then a proper thread specifically about the man can be made that's listed properly?
I thought about making a new thread for it.  I'm not quite what the benefit of a new thread would be though.

 No.6678

>>6647
>For some reason the name seems to have glitched here.
Cross-reference: https://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/6883.html#6884

 No.6682


 No.6686

There's a simple solution to all of this unrest, and that's to listen to black people about the injustices they are protesting against and stop protecting corrupt cops and 2A nutjobs when they kill people.

 No.6695

>>6686
>There's a simple solution to all of this unrest, and that's to listen to black people about the injustices they are protesting against and stop protecting corrupt cops and 2A nutjobs when they kill people.
I disagree.  There are systemic issues with police training.  Merely punishing the corrupt cops won't fix that.  And people who kill in lawful self-defense should be protected regardless of whether they are """2A nutjobs""".

 No.6696

>>6686
I've not really heard any issues with 2A nutjobs, though.
Most I've seen has been clearcut cases of self defense, like with Kyle.

I'll agree we should punish corrupt cops. I think you'd get bipartisan support for that. But, it seems like there's larger aims, and the dems did stop even discussing a bill from the right on police reform. So, I don't think it will happen.
And of course, it does need to be said, these issues seem to be always in democrat-controlled cities.

 No.6701

>>6696
>Most I've seen has been clearcut cases of self defense, like with Kyle.

Kyle Rittenhouse? He was with a "militia" group looking for people to kill. It wasn't "self-defense". You can't just label any gun-lover's actions as self-defense because they support guns. It was clearly murder.

>>6695
>>6696
The entire police system is corrupt, its not a matter of "bad cops", but completely reforming the system.

 No.6703

>>6701
>He was with a "militia" group looking for people to kill
Citation needed.
>It wasn't "self-defense".
Citation needed.

>You can't just label any gun-lover's actions as self-defense because they support guns
And you can't just label any gun usage as murder just because it was your side who decided to attack.
it wasn't murder. The evidence thus far seems to make that explicitly clear. He was retreating in every single instance he shot. Every single time, he was actively being chased.

>It was clearly murder.
Citation needed.

Every single bit of evidence I have seen thus far, points very explicitly to self-defense.
What evidence causes you to believe that what he did was unjustified? Do you have any?

 No.6704

>>6703
By his own admission he considered himself part of a militia (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/08/26/kyle-rittenhouse-charged-kenosha-shootings-militia/5636473002/)

To claim it was self-defense is ignoring the facts and they eye-witness accounts to support a narrative.

 No.6710

>>6704
Militia does not mean out looking to to kill people.
The main point is to act as a deterrent. Hell, the term is primarily in reference to local organized defense, for that matter.
The term does not at all imply looking for somebody to kill. That is your own assumption which does not reflect reality.

>To claim it was self-defense is ignoring the facts and they eye-witness accounts to support a narrative.
There is video evidence of the incident. The video evidence clearly demonstrates self-defense.

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, provide it! Don't just make up stuff, and insist I believe you.

If the only requirement at this point is to just make up stuff, then it was 100% self-defense, because they were all child murderers who were hoping to blow up the city.

 No.6712

>>6701
>It was clearly murder.
Serious, non-rhetorical question: Did you watch the video?  I don't see how someone can reasonably claim not only that it was murder, but that it was clearly murder.  He was being assaulted by a mob of people.  He was hit by a skateboard by one person and he shot another person who was drawing a handgun on him (and possibly would have fired if he didn't lose a portion of his bicep).  It is at least plausible that it was self-defense.  And personally, I'd say that the evidence very heavily points toward a verdict of self-defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZTDkjU-X5M

 No.6713

File: 1599688574190.png (266.91 KB, 625x428, 625:428, EgdH2qVU0AElj_Z.png) ImgOps Google

Gaige Grosskreutz (the man whom Kyle shot in the arm) allegedly admitted that he might have killed Kyle if Kyle hadn't disarmed him first.  Personally I'd say that Kyle has less than a 10% chance of getting convicted of first-degree intentional homicide (the Wisconsin equivalent of murder) -- and the only reason that I'd go as high as 10% is my lack of confidence in the justice system.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1299086141329563648?s=20

 No.6714

File: 1599688976215.jpg (126.7 KB, 903x1213, 903:1213, 1490382748840.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6701
>The entire police system is corrupt
If you mean the system considered as a whole (as opposed to all the officers considered individually), then I agree.

>its not a matter of "bad cops", but completely reforming the system.
I agree.  The police have too much unaccountable power and too little oversight.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]