Teddy KGB Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said: Well looks like bronny and company folded up tents when their salaries would be cut. Guess "principle" only takes you so far. or they watched the video of Blake’s last stand.
K-9 Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 10 hours ago, RaoulDuke79 said: Kinda seems like you just did what he did. He made a direct terrorist threat to the public at large. I merely responded by asserting my intention to defend myself against his threat. They aren’t similar in the least.
LB3 Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 1 hour ago, NoSaint said: reading some of the rittenhouse filings... curious what folks think about him calling his friend instead of the police after the first shooting or frankly that once he reached police he didn’t immediately stop and report If I had to guess, based on earlier videos, he probably called the friend that was the de facto leader of their group to ask what he should do. The kid in the earlier videos that was seen pulling his guys, specifically Rittenhouse, back. It's not uncommon for the first call to be a trusted friend or family member. As to your second question, people can only speculate. It's possible that the advice he was given was to turn himself in later to avoid further deadly conflicts that night. If he turned himself in to police right then and there and the protesters/rioters saw it, it's not a stretch to think they'd attack the police car carrying him causing Rittenhouse’s group to intervene and make an already bad situation worse.
K-9 Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, LB3 said: I don't know who that dude is but watching that clip if you don't riot in his community you'll be fine. The McCloskey's agree with your sentiment though. He made a terrorist threat by saying he and countess others are armed and waiting for orders by the president to start taking out activists. He didn’t say rioters. He said activists. I don’t trust these yahoos to be able to distinguish between the two. Had anyone threatened the McCloskeys or their property, they would have been well within their rights to defend themselves. Except nobody set foot on their property and nobody posed a threat to them. As has been the case every other time these overly litigious people have run others off their property, including neighbors. Wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn they did the Rambo thing in the hopes of creating yet more grounds to sue yet more people. It’s what they do. Edited August 29, 2020 by K-9
LB3 Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, K-9 said: He made a terrorist threat by saying he and countess others are armed and waiting for orders by the president to start taking out activists. He didn’t say rioters. He said activists. I don’t trust these yahoos to be able to distinguish between the two. Had anyone threatened the McCloskeys or their property, they would have been well within their rights to defend themselves. Except nobody set foot on their property and nobody posed a threat to them. As has been the case every other time these overly litigious people have run others off their property, including neighbors. Wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn they did the Rambo thing in the hopes of creating yet more grounds to sue yet more people. It’s what they do. Can you find me the quote? I reread it and he specifically said Antifa, not activists. Maybe I missed the activist part. Activists not burning communities to the ground would be and should be fine. When he says Antifa, to me it means he's speaking of the violent fascists who want to attack people for perceived thought crimes.
NoSaint Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 10 minutes ago, LB3 said: If I had to guess, based on earlier videos, he probably called the friend that was the de facto leader of their group to ask what he should do. The kid in the earlier videos that was seen pulling his guys, specifically Rittenhouse, back. It's not uncommon for the first call to be a trusted friend or family member. As to your second question, people can only speculate. It's possible that the advice he was given was to turn himself in later to avoid further deadly conflicts that night. If he turned himself in to police right then and there and the protesters/rioters saw it, it's not a stretch to think they'd attack the police car carrying him causing Rittenhouse’s group to intervene and make an already bad situation worse. ready- next time try applying that level of thought to what could be going through the mind of the young black man dead in the street instead of saying he should be shot for fleeing the scene if he has been accused of a crime. as by your standard this young man charged with several serious crimes should’ve been shot for fleeing.
LB3 Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, NoSaint said: ready- next time try applying that level of thought to what could be going through the mind of the young black man dead in the street instead of saying he should be shot for fleeing the scene if he has been accused of a crime. as by your standard this young man charged with several serious crimes should’ve been shot for fleeing. Apples to oranges. Did he fight officers while resisting arrest? Did the officers know he had committed those crimes when he passed through? Edited August 29, 2020 by LB3
K-9 Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 10 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said: The irony in his post is that he gets upset over one person making these statements online, while the cities are literally burning, and people are getting hurt and dying because of violent left wing mobs...why wouldn’t the actual violence piss him off more than someone just saying things on the internet? Online threats are taken seriously by law enforcement agencies the world over. The fact the threat was made on social media over the internet doesn’t make it any less serious. Your expertise should have informed you of this fact. Speaking of irony, I find it ironic that those who’ve taken the solemn oath to protect and serve communities and wear the badge that exemplifies that dedication, would condone having armed vigilantes in the streets and killing people. For the record, I’m just as angry about actual violent mob behavior as you or anyone else. But getting back to Dilley, what is violence before it becomes actual?
K-9 Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 13 minutes ago, LB3 said: Can you find me the quote? I reread it and he specifically said Antifa, not activists. Maybe I missed the activist part. Activists not burning communities to the ground would be and should be fine. When he says Antifa, to me it means he's speaking of the violent fascists who want to attack people for perceived thought crimes. Yes, he used the word “antifa” and the reporter used the word “activist” so I can see your point in that regard. And while I appreciate the clarification, it does little to sway my opinion of his terrorist intent. I also don’t buy the “antifa” narrative that’s been manufactured to stoke fear and tamp down legitimate protests. But that is another subject I have no desire to discuss here with your or anyone else. But if the antifa boogeyman really exists, maybe Dilley can go to their headquarters and make a preemptive strike.
NoSaint Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 12 minutes ago, LB3 said: Apples to oranges. Did he fight officers while resisting arrest? Did the officers know he had committed those crimes when he passed through? you said that criminals fleeing should be shot solely on fleeing. And have mocked me several times for pointing out how ludicrous that is. That there are criminals and innocents and criminals should be killed to protect the innocents if they don’t immediately go to jail. but here we are with a charged person walking away from the scene of his shooting 3 people while still seeming to be illegally carrying his gun and after curfew and you are justifying that he was just trying to ensure his and others safety by not surrendering to the police there. you can see why someone would find a bit of contradiction in your comments throughout this thread, no? Is it the speed with which they flee? Like a brisk walk is cool but if sprinting it’s an issue? Or is the tipping point an officer saying “stop” and then continuing on that makes you want them dead? Because it wasn’t fighting officers up thread when you made the argument, or the additional times you brought it up. I don’t know, maybe there’s something else different between this kid and the other “criminals.” Just now, K-9 said: Yes, he used the word “antifa” and the reporter used the word “activist” so I can see your point in that regard. And while I appreciate the clarification, it does little to sway my opinion of his terrorist intent. I also don’t buy the “antifa” narrative that’s been manufactured to stoke fear and tamp down legitimate protests. But that is another subject I have no desire to discuss here with your or anyone else. But if the antifa boogeyman really exists, maybe Dilley can go to their headquarters and make a preemptive strike. It’s certainly getting harder and harder to parse out protestor vs BLM vs antifa in the arguments some of these folks make. When you refer to the entire group as antifa or the growing more common BLM terrorists... it makes you wonder which activists would be spared during this 1 hour full massacre of all antifa. actually, it doesn’t make me wonder that. It makes me wonder why anyone is defending the dudes rhetoric in the first place. It’s ok to just say someone “on your side” is an extremist and shouldn’t be considered representative. Unless you actually do agree and just don’t like having to own it publicly is the real issue.
K-9 Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 1 hour ago, NoSaint said: It’s certainly getting harder and harder to parse out protestor vs BLM vs antifa in the arguments some of these folks make. When you refer to the entire group as antifa or the growing more common BLM terrorists... it makes you wonder which activists would be spared during this 1 hour full massacre of all antifa. actually, it doesn’t make me wonder that. It makes me wonder why anyone is defending the dudes rhetoric in the first place. It’s ok to just say someone “on your side” is an extremist and shouldn’t be considered representative. Unless you actually do agree and just don’t like having to own it publicly is the real issue. It’s obvious that certain media outlets seek to paint all activists, protestors, rioters, other criminal elements with one broad brush in order to delegitimize perfectly legal protest activities. This is done intentionally for cheap political reasons, photo opportunities, etc., and stoking division between people is the goal. There is no legitimate defense of Dilley’s rhetoric. None. He is calling for an armed call to violence.
HappyDays Posted August 29, 2020 Posted August 29, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, Johnny Hammersticks said: I give you guys all permission to take the weekend off. I think this horse has been beaten to death and has already been processed at the glue factory ??♂️ I skimmed the last few pages, looks like people are trying to make legal judgments based on scant evidence and social media videos. The legal system will have to run its course before anyone knows for sure what crime Rittenhouse is guilty of. From what I've read, it appears that no one involved is entirely blameless. But Rittenhouse will still probably be convicted of a felony. It's like if you get into a bar fight and punch someone hard enough that they happen to knock their head on the ground and die. That person may be just as responsible for the fight as you, but you're still getting charged with manslaughter and likely convicted. If you show up to a protest with an assault rifle and two people end up dead, you're not likely walking away from that without consequences. Also certain people need to make up their minds. If a person reaching towards something unknown in a vehicle is enough to plead self-defense, then what is a kid showing up to a large gathering with an assault rifle supposed to mean? Even if you argue that Rittenhouse was defending himself when he killed two people, he decided to escalate the situation in the first place. So even in the most favorable view of the situation for him he is also not entirely blameless. I support gun rights but if a kid showed up to a large gathering with an assault rifle my mind would go into self-defense mode. The last thing we need in response to alleged looting is vigilantes trying to do the law's work for them, especially when the "vigilantes" are armed teenagers. Edited August 29, 2020 by HappyDays 1
RaoulDuke79 Posted August 30, 2020 Posted August 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Twitter .......Ruining society one day at a time.
Warcodered Posted August 30, 2020 Posted August 30, 2020 17 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said: Twitter .......Ruining society one day at a time. right... clearly Twitter is the root of all our problems.?
RaoulDuke79 Posted August 30, 2020 Posted August 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Warcodered said: right... clearly Twitter is the root of all our problems.? Do you think it's helping or hurting?
Warcodered Posted August 30, 2020 Posted August 30, 2020 Just now, RaoulDuke79 said: Do you think it's helping or hurting? I'd say it's not all that close to the top of my list.
RaoulDuke79 Posted August 30, 2020 Posted August 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Warcodered said: I'd say it's not all that close to the top of my list. Answer the question directly. Not a round about response. Do you think Twitter is helping or hurting society with regards to the social issues we're dealing with.
NoSaint Posted August 30, 2020 Posted August 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said: Answer the question directly. Not a round about response. Do you think Twitter is helping or hurting society with regards to the social issues we're dealing with. I think it’s a far more layered answer than you care to explore. There’s a ton of positives but likewise a lot of issues. There’s also short and long term considerations. but I suspect we would only marginally agree on what the issues are yet alone how they are being effected in various horizons 1
RaoulDuke79 Posted August 30, 2020 Posted August 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, NoSaint said: I think it’s a far more layered answer than you care to explore. There’s a ton of positives but likewise a lot of issues. There’s also short and long term considerations. but I suspect we would only marginally agree on what the issues are yet alone how they are being effected in various horizons Why do you think this?
Recommended Posts