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.

 

A tactical and legal analysis of the Kenosha shootings

page: 9
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




I think it’s more your belief that a dude being chased by an armed mob doesn’t have a right to defend himself when the mob catches him because he ignored a curfew order and had a gun he wasn’t supposed to have that might be what’s being called disgusting.

Could be wrong though


I'm going to put this out there.
I think the video of the first shooting is questionable. It is hard to see, people are still trying to decipher it.
We can only guess what transpired.

As far as the following shootings, it is very clear. You can even hear one guy say "hey what he do?" they say, "he shot someone", and they go after him. It is obvious (at least to me) they are trying to get him because he was shooting people.
In most cases we would think, hey that's a good thing, go after someone who is shooting at others.




posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf




it actually is to such a degree that I am wondering if someone is trying to start a white vs white race war, as odd as that sounds.


As odd as it sounds there is a lot of truth to that.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

Shooting people or shot 1 person?

Not that I would accuse you of disinformation... again.

It's fascinating all the little omissions and funny wording that happens with this case.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm



get him

Tell us what that entails? first guy shot in the second incident, tried to smash him in the head..got shot, second guy drew a gun, retreated momentarily, then went for it..got shot.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think it’s more your belief that a dude being chased by an armed mob doesn’t have a right to defend himself when the mob catches him because he ignored a curfew order and had a gun he wasn’t supposed to have that might be what’s being called disgusting.

Could be wrong though.


And Bingo was his name-o. I find it disgusting that a FELON has more of a right to a weapon and a right to defend himself in her eyes, than Kyle does.

That is some Grade A Kool-Aid Hypocrisy right there, and it's not remotely defensible. WTF.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah




And Bingo was his name-o. I find it disgusting that a FELON has more of a right to a weapon and a right to defend himself in her eyes, than Kyle does.


Did I make the gun laws???



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

You think it’s a good thing for somebody to try and chase somebody down because a third party says he shot somebody? No wonder you have such a warped view of self defense.

“Hello fellow rioter, why are they chasing that guy? Oh, you say he shot somebody? Good enough for me, even though he’s running down the road not trying to shoot anybody I’m gonna try to dome him with my skateboard.”



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Nyiah




And Bingo was his name-o. I find it disgusting that a FELON has more of a right to a weapon and a right to defend himself in her eyes, than Kyle does.


Did I make the gun laws???


Obviously not. Equally obvious you don’t understand them, either. Or choose to selectively interpret them.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 08:58 PM
link   
From the probable cause filing, the moments leading up to the first shooting:


McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant. When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a “juke” move and started running. McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant. McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals.


This was, of course, after Kyle had been asking the “protestors” if any of them needed medical attention. For a guy who’s motive for being there was to kill protestors, seems an odd thing to ask.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




Obviously not. Equally obvious you don’t understand them, either. Or choose to selectively interpret them.


You mean like how a 17 year old from another state is not allowed to legally have/use a gun in Wisconsin?
Sounds like you don't know the laws.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




You think it’s a good thing for somebody to try and chase somebody down because a third party says he shot somebody? No wonder you have such a warped view of self defense.


Sooooooooooo it's ok for people to use Guns to "protect" businesses etc, but it's not OK for people to "protect" others?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Shamrock6




Obviously not. Equally obvious you don’t understand them, either. Or choose to selectively interpret them.


You mean like how a 17 year old from another state is not allowed to legally have/use a gun in Wisconsin?
Sounds like you don't know the laws.


Oooo you got me there, good one.

Wait, I said in my OP he’d catch the gun charge. Dang, guess it’s still you with the comprehension issue.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

How was anybody protecting anybody by chasing a guy carrying a gun who was trying to run away from them, not shoot them? Were they protecting the rest of the crowd from his farts?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Shamrock6




You think it’s a good thing for somebody to try and chase somebody down because a third party says he shot somebody? No wonder you have such a warped view of self defense.


Sooooooooooo it's ok for people to use Guns to "protect" businesses etc, but it's not OK for people to "protect" others?



WTF???

Anyone translate this?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If police cant do their job and politicans wont let them the govt is abdicating their responsibility for political reasons which leaves the people to form militias to protect themselves.





Except crossing the border armed with intent to police a riot or a protest isn't self defense.

Unless of course you're using south park law.



He was not armed when crossing the border , stop with the lies.



What a silly argument. Took a gun with him , stole a gun, found a gun was given a gun makes no difference to he shouldn't have been there with a gun.


It's only silly because I called out your lie.

A gun, knife, stick or a skateboard can be used as a weapon,,talk about silly.
🤡


No its silly because that boy had no business walking around with a rifle. And his decision to do so caused two people to die that night needlessly.


They should not have attacked a person with a gun.


We can take this in any direction you wish.

Maybe if Rittenhouse was attacked, then the reason would be the protestors where in fear of THEIR LIVES because he was walking around with a loaded gun pointing it at them.

See how things can be switched around. It's all a load of cobblers.





Going to be hard to prove that as the first victim was videotaped outraged yelling shoot me Mother F----- ----- over and over again. LOL he wasn't afraid this man was an ex-con and he was enraged.

LOL he was anything but scared


Are you really suggesting Rittenhouse murdered someone because he was " being shouted at " ?

You people have some really weird ideas. WOW.



If you look the quote you may be able to follow along or you can continue being an emotional spammer. LOL they chased Rittenhouse down he did not shoot till the 26-year-old ex-con that has a rap sheet caught him and grabbed his AR 15 that when he got shot those are the words of another "protester" on scene.
edit on 29-8-2020 by putnam6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Muninn
If an angry pedo chases a child after they put out a fire he is the one "protecting" the community.

Any clearer?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

A succinct summary.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Shamrock, many thanks for posting this thread. Whatever the outcome of the proceedings to follow, FACTS WERE PUT INTO THE DISCOURSE.

I am going to acknowledge that I think the author of this write-up was no fan of the rioters, but he went out of his way to be fair and lay blame/accountability where appropriate at the shooter's feet.

I saw as an objective, fact-based depiction of the events as can possibly be presented at this point, drawn from many different accounts, photos and video footage. Short of a rock-solid, high reputation biographer or documentary producer going to bat on this incident, /and I don't mean a shill for one of the main media syndicates/, that is probably the best we are going to get as to understanding what transpired.

I only hope that the court members and jury are given this kind of high quality material to base their decisions on.

I know what I walked away from this thinking:

- a naive, but well intentioned kid, got out WAY over his skis in Kenosha; he shouldn't have been there really
- some hardened criminals, MINIMALLY in the midst of engaging in property destruction, singled this kid out to prey on
- the kid tried in vein to remove himself from a threatening situation
- push came to shove came to shooting, and in the end lives were lost that tragically could've not been lost
- I lay 100% of the fault of this on the disgusting rioters who ultimately initiated violence that led to their demise

I'll finish up by saying I honestly could see the kid being acquitted or sent away, as there are major legal variables and technicalities in play that quite honestly exceed my understanding of trial law. At the end of the day he took lives, and even though any objective person saw the kid trying his damnedest to deescalate violence inflicted on him by quite frankly criminal vermin, we know this is a dicey situation from a legal standpoint (this was not a private property owner in the throes of self-defense in a castle doctrine setting).

Last things I'd like to ask:

WHEN WILL THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OPEN FOR THE RED-MISTED BICEPS DUDE WHO WAS ILLEGALLY CARRYING A FIREARM WHILST REPRESENTING HIMSELF AS AN EMT

Also, since Antifa is now considered a domestic terror outfit, when will DoJ begin investigating potential criminal involvement of others in the vicinity of this shooting, a.k.a. "BLM Backpack Girl" and "Grey Camo Pants" guy from the video footage?! Someone other than that kid was squeezing off rounds out there. Some of the video footage paints a compelling picture that "Grey Camo Pants" guy was the perpetrator.

I TRUST ANYONE DEMANDING CRIMINAL ACTION FOR THE KID SHOOTER IS INTENTLY INTERESTED TO KNOW THE IDENTITIES OF OTHER SHOOTERS ON THAT EVENING, WHAT THEIR LEGAL FIREARM STATUS IS, AND WHERE THEY LIVE, AND WHAT ROLE THEY PLAYED IN THE ESCALATION OF THE RIOTS INTO BLOODSHED.

Again, thanks for posting this.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Nyiah


I looked at it from a legal perspective and hes going to jail. In fact he has to could you imagine the riots if he doesnt? but that aside the prosecutor has to show his actions caused their death that wont be terribly hard to do. You can argue self defence all you like but it wont fly by a jury. because everyone is going to say well you bring a loaded gun to a protest then you all ready were planning to use it. Hard to argue they were not when they could simply not have brought loaded weopons and still could have used tazers or bats. This wasnt their property the owners didnt ask them to be there they just wanted to feel important. So these need to be special got people killed/


No offense, but you're not remotely looking at this objectively, so excuse me if I discard your 'legal perspective'.

Number one, you've already laid your cards down on the table in another thread, so your interest in the proceedings are rather telling now IMO. It's become increasingly evident that you're letting racial context of the event at large, and not the immediate details of the shooting, cloud your judgement on the matter, when in fact nobody, NOBODY immediately involved in this affair are people of color. This is a riot and destruction concern, NOT a racial one, despite how you want to try your hardest to frame it, and despite the context of alleged BLM protests that preceeding that evening's violence and looting.

As an aside, what's your view of the neanderthalic and evidently insane white sexual predator tossing around racial pejoratives like candy? Be honest, would that fly if that was done in front of you, or would you let that slide because short bald guy fashioned himself as 'woke'.

Number two, let me say this clearly: in the US, and I don't know where you're from/where you're at, but here, we don't calibrate justice or tweak trials because we're worried that more degenerate filth like this are going to take it badly and launch into more rioting. JUSTICE IS BLIND, a common meme represented by the gray blindfolded lady carrying the scales of Justice. The kid shooter will be tried by his peers, he will be found guilty or not guilty, and walk free or be imprisoned, and those that would break the peace on account of either verdict are not Americans, have no right to call themselves that.

As I posted earlier, I can see reasons for the boy to walk away with no legal baggage, and I can see an argument for the boy to have some culpability in the affair. You friend, are twisting up like a pretzel, siding up with pure unadulterated criminals, and it's rather transparent what your angle is on this.
edit on 29-8-2020 by SleeperHasAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




That boy had as much Business walking around with a rifle as the Guy who Pointed a Glock at his Head in the Middle of the Street while the Cops Looked on as Bystanders due to the Mayors Orders . You are not that Naive are you ?




top topics



 
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join