It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video: Rioter repeatedly says shoot me n-word and gets shot in the head

page: 17
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: ThouArtGod

I'm wondering maybe Earth belongs to all the evil people and that im the problem because I'm not like them.

Maybe it's best to call it GG and bail...

Reincarnate my ass somewhere civilized and reasonable...


Please stop making this thread about you.

literally 7 or 8 posts and all of them are about YOU and not the topic at hand

as usual
edit on 27-8-2020 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

One cannot claim self-defense against self-defense. It don't work that way.

TheRedneck


Huh, if the first shot to the dome was self defense, then the people trying to curb stomp him in the street and were shot was were also shot in self defense. People chasing him down screaming "get him" were not defenders, they were offenders. He had every right to use deadly force in fear of his life in a riot situation begin chased by multiple people, IF the first shot was in self defense. If the first shot was not justifiable self defense, then the second and third shots were not justified either.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


That's my only Hope...
That God will lift me out of this...

He will. Ask and ye shall receive.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ththema


That's incorrect. Terrorism is simply political violence against civilians.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a terrorist. Period. He crossed state lines in support of a political cause, and murdered two unarmed civilians of the political opposition. That's called terrorism.

Police cannot just legally shoot someone in the process of a crime, also completely fabricated.

Anyways yes, the correct thing to do is disarm and kill if necessary all active shooters, regardless of who or where.

That's why those men who died trying to disarm Rittenhouse are heroes.

Not complicated stuff.


One mans murderer is another mans Hero. Snipers know that well.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Police can shoot someone in the act of a crime. robbing a bank,for example. If there is ANY weapon involved its legal to kill the perp/crook/foolish person/AKA scum.

Those people were not police and got what they deserved for trying to be vigilantes with skateboards. Your heroes are all convicted criminals btw. A pedo(dont even deserve to breath anymore anyway) and one for assault,another was in a hate group.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: panoz77

No.

You do not understand what self-defense is. I pray you never do.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Here is another "WLM" scumbag getting a lead tuxedo. I wonder why the cops didn't just shoot him once in the leg?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

No.

You do not understand what self-defense is. I pray you never do.

TheRedneck


Enlighten me. I think you might be confused on what you are reading. How many videos do we need to watch of anti-protestors being beaten to within an inch of their lives or beaten to death by a mob, in a mob situation, if I am armed and being swarmed by people with weapons like rocks, pipes, bats or skateboards, I would most certainly be clip dumping my gun on the attackers.
edit on 27-8-2020 by panoz77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Ththema

Watch the videos and tell me why those guys were shot.

Now look up the definition of deadly force.

In doing so, an objective person must conclude is was a justified defensive shooting.

Protesting doesn't give you the right to mob attacks somebody.

Arson is grounds for deadly force
Mob violence is grounds for deadly force
Attempted disarming is grounds for deadly force

You have a problem with that take it up with the law

To make matters more obvious, the MAN was trying to retreat the entire time but bloodthirsty antifa rioters continued their onslaught



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Yep!



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: panoz77

I'll try.

One has the right to protect themselves against criminal or violent attack. If you attack me and I respond, I am practicing self-defense. You are not. I did not start the confrontation; you did. You cannot turn around and claim that I was attacking you because you started the attack.

If I look outside and see you trying to steal from me, I can legally (in Alabama, anyway; would-be looters take note) kill you to protect my property. If I miss the first shot, you cannot return fire and claim self-defense, because you were the one committing the crime that led me to defend my property.

Whoever starts the altercation cannot claim self-defense. They caused the other party to practice self-defense.

Now, once the altercation is over, it's over. If we get into a fight and you run away, I cannot hunt you down and claim self defense. In that case, since I hunted you down after the original altercation, you would be able to claim self-defense. If, during an altercation, you start to retreat, once I have had reasonable time to recognize that retreat, I can no longer claim self-defense. The altercation is over. You might be able to claim self defense against me if I did not disengage... that is a tricky legal area. Once we have separated, though, the legalities are clear.

In the context we are discussing in this thread:

Kyle was legally at the riot, as were the rioters (except for being rioters of course). One of the rioters got into Kyle's face and threatened him. Kyle could, at that point, defend himself legally. He did. He granted the rioter's wishes and shot him. Kyle then tried to retreat. Another rioter knocked Kyle to the ground and he was then attacked by yet another rioter. He could then shoot his attacker in self-defense because he had not attacked him first. Finally, he was attacked by even another rioter. He could legally defend against this one as well (turning his arm into ground beef is acceptable) because again, Kyle did not attack him until he attacked Kyle.

Actual force need not be present; only the reasonable expectation that force is about to be used. One need not be shot first to shoot an attacker. One need not be stabbed to defend oneself.

All of the rioters that Kyle shot were attacking him before he shot them, therefore none of them can claim self defense.

Enlightened yet?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Ththema


That's incorrect. Terrorism is simply political violence against civilians.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a terrorist. Period. He crossed state lines in support of a political cause, and murdered two unarmed civilians of the political opposition. That's called terrorism.

Police cannot just legally shoot someone in the process of a crime, also completely fabricated.

Anyways yes, the correct thing to do is disarm and kill if necessary all active shooters, regardless of who or where.

That's why those men who died trying to disarm Rittenhouse are heroes.

Not complicated stuff.


One mans murderer is another mans Hero. Snipers know that well.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Police can shoot someone in the act of a crime. robbing a bank,for example. If there is ANY weapon involved its legal to kill the perp/crook/foolish person/AKA scum.

Those people were not police and got what they deserved for trying to be vigilantes with skateboards. Your heroes are all convicted criminals btw. A pedo(dont even deserve to breath anymore anyway) and one for assault,another was in a hate group.



Your hero is a mass murderer and terrorist, who fled the state.

My hero is someone who martyred his life trying to disarm an active shooter. None of them seem to have rap sheets involving first degree murder and terrorism.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Ththema

Watch the videos and tell me why those guys were shot.

Now look up the definition of deadly force.

In doing so, an objective person must conclude is was a justified defensive shooting.

Protesting doesn't give you the right to mob attacks somebody.

Arson is grounds for deadly force
Mob violence is grounds for deadly force
Attempted disarming is grounds for deadly force

You have a problem with that take it up with the law

To make matters more obvious, the MAN was trying to retreat the entire time but bloodthirsty antifa rioters continued their onslaught


Yea Rittenhouse knew it was self-defense, murdering two unarmed civilians, and shooting other unarmed civilians.

Which is why he fled the state.

He knew the fact that one of them having a skateboard was surefire grounds for probable cause to murder.

You seem to know a lot about the legal system.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

I'll try.

One has the right to protect themselves against criminal or violent attack. If you attack me and I respond, I am practicing self-defense. You are not. I did not start the confrontation; you did. You cannot turn around and claim that I was attacking you because you started the attack.

If I look outside and see you trying to steal from me, I can legally (in Alabama, anyway; would-be looters take note) kill you to protect my property. If I miss the first shot, you cannot return fire and claim self-defense, because you were the one committing the crime that led me to defend my property.

Whoever starts the altercation cannot claim self-defense. They caused the other party to practice self-defense.

Now, once the altercation is over, it's over. If we get into a fight and you run away, I cannot hunt you down and claim self defense. In that case, since I hunted you down after the original altercation, you would be able to claim self-defense. If, during an altercation, you start to retreat, once I have had reasonable time to recognize that retreat, I can no longer claim self-defense. The altercation is over. You might be able to claim self defense against me if I did not disengage... that is a tricky legal area. Once we have separated, though, the legalities are clear.

In the context we are discussing in this thread:

Kyle was legally at the riot, as were the rioters (except for being rioters of course). One of the rioters got into Kyle's face and threatened him. Kyle could, at that point, defend himself legally. He did. He granted the rioter's wishes and shot him. Kyle then tried to retreat. Another rioter knocked Kyle to the ground and he was then attacked by yet another rioter. He could then shoot his attacker in self-defense because he had not attacked him first. Finally, he was attacked by even another rioter. He could legally defend against this one as well (turning his arm into ground beef is acceptable) because again, Kyle did not attack him until he attacked Kyle.

Actual force need not be present; only the reasonable expectation that force is about to be used. One need not be shot first to shoot an attacker. One need not be stabbed to defend oneself.

All of the rioters that Kyle shot were attacking him before he shot them, therefore none of them can claim self defense.

Enlightened yet?

TheRedneck


We agree, so what are you arguing with me about? My only point is, if he simply shot a person for no reason (which he didn't) and then other people tried to stop an "active shooter" (which he wasn't), then he could not claim self defense for shooting additional people "in self defense" who were trying to stop a criminal shooter. Capiche?
edit on 27-8-2020 by panoz77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ththema

Prepare for anger and disappointment. He may get in trouble for crossing state lines or being so young but those were justified shootings and he won’t do any time for that.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: panoz77


We agree, so what are you arguing with me about?

Apparently because I misinterpreted your post.

I got the idea you were saying the rioters he shot were acting in self defense.

Sorry.... PBRs on me?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: DeathSlayer

This is a result of taking Bugs Bunny cartoons off the air.
Daffy Duck repeatedly tells Bugs Bunny to "Shoot me now!" , so Bugs Bunny without hesitation shoots him in the head.

Yeah , Bugs used logic traps to reverse the situation...



Playing, "Believe Me if All Those Endearing Young Charms"

E_D_C...^D_C-C^E^G_F^A^C#-C#

KAH PLOW OH!!!


edit on 8/28/2020 by AlexandrosTheGreat because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/28/2020 by AlexandrosTheGreat because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ththema

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Ththema


That's incorrect. Terrorism is simply political violence against civilians.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a terrorist. Period. He crossed state lines in support of a political cause, and murdered two unarmed civilians of the political opposition. That's called terrorism.

Police cannot just legally shoot someone in the process of a crime, also completely fabricated.

Anyways yes, the correct thing to do is disarm and kill if necessary all active shooters, regardless of who or where.

That's why those men who died trying to disarm Rittenhouse are heroes.

Not complicated stuff.


One mans murderer is another mans Hero. Snipers know that well.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Police can shoot someone in the act of a crime. robbing a bank,for example. If there is ANY weapon involved its legal to kill the perp/crook/foolish person/AKA scum.

Those people were not police and got what they deserved for trying to be vigilantes with skateboards. Your heroes are all convicted criminals btw. A pedo(dont even deserve to breath anymore anyway) and one for assault,another was in a hate group.



Your hero is a mass murderer and terrorist, who fled the state.

My hero is someone who martyred his life trying to disarm an active shooter. None of them seem to have rap sheets involving first degree murder and terrorism.


Your hero is a convicted scumbag who tried to dissarm a guy defending himself. That guy went on to ironicly disarm another armed attacker by nearly taking off his arm.

The kid was charged but he will beat it with all the video evidence. He may get charged with a misdameanor for being under 18 with a rifle. Maybe, but doubtful.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Ththema


Yea Rittenhouse knew it was self-defense, murdering two unarmed civilians, and shooting other unarmed civilians.


They weren't unarmed. The first perp had an IED/IID improvised incendiary device he was actively using to commit arson. The second and third were a disparite threat engaged in mob violence AND engaged in an attempted disarming. Both are grounds for deadly force. Whether you like it or not that's the law.


Which is why he fled the state.


Was that before or after he approached law enforcement and attempted to make contact with them?

Was he supposed to stay in the danger zone all night?



He knew the fact that one of them having a skateboard was surefire grounds for probable cause to murder.


Wasn't about the skateboard, although how he was using it certainly constitutes some level of unlawful physical force. The problem here is that mob violence - no matter what unlawful act it is - constitutes deadly force. Its because a disparity of force exists between a mob and an individual that is so great that the law considers deadly force to be a reasonable response to an equally deadly threat.

Add in the arson AND attempted disarming, and there are at least 3 instances of justifiable use of deady force.

That isn't even counting the LWNJ's who started popping off shots after he defended himself.

The facts are out, and this wrong will be righted. We're looking at Sandmann 2.0


You seem to know a lot about the legal system.


Enough to know he didn't do anything wrong.

I'll ask again, what was he supposed to do? Watch a BUILDING get BURNED down? Be beaten within an inch of his life? Get lynched in the streets by a bloodthirsty and violent mob of zealot extremists?

I applaud his actions.
edit on 8/28/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Ththema

Yeah, it takes a special kind of stupid to go after a person with a rifle when YOU are the one doing something wrong.

Protip: if you're burning down buildings, engaged in mob violence or trying to take someone's firearm... you don't have a right to defend yourself from a person who is themselves engaged in lawful self defense.

It just makes you "the threat" not a defender.

I don't feel even the tiniest bit bad for those dead antifa soyboy scumbags. Again, I APPLAUD and fully support every last action taken by this man. He's 100% right, the mob is 100% wrong.
edit on 8/28/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Ththema

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Ththema


That's incorrect. Terrorism is simply political violence against civilians.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a terrorist. Period. He crossed state lines in support of a political cause, and murdered two unarmed civilians of the political opposition. That's called terrorism.

Police cannot just legally shoot someone in the process of a crime, also completely fabricated.

Anyways yes, the correct thing to do is disarm and kill if necessary all active shooters, regardless of who or where.

That's why those men who died trying to disarm Rittenhouse are heroes.

Not complicated stuff.


One mans murderer is another mans Hero. Snipers know that well.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Police can shoot someone in the act of a crime. robbing a bank,for example. If there is ANY weapon involved its legal to kill the perp/crook/foolish person/AKA scum.

Those people were not police and got what they deserved for trying to be vigilantes with skateboards. Your heroes are all convicted criminals btw. A pedo(dont even deserve to breath anymore anyway) and one for assault,another was in a hate group.



Your hero is a mass murderer and terrorist, who fled the state.

My hero is someone who martyred his life trying to disarm an active shooter. None of them seem to have rap sheets involving first degree murder and terrorism.


He may get charged with a misdameanor for being under 18 with a rifle. Maybe, but doubtful.


Charging him only underscores their own incompetence. The officials refused to do their jobs and enforce the law, forcing children to do what adults should have handled, resulting in death and dismemberment of misinformed citizens. You want to know why? Because they think it makes Trump look bad. Did I mention they’re incompetent?

edit on 28-8-2020 by Guiltyguitarist because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join