Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

[chipbennett]

Thanks for asking, Chip. I said what I said because he went there, armed, knowing the likelihood was high that he would need the gun. Whatever other purposes he had did not require a rifle.
Cleaning graffiti does not require a rifle.
Providing medical aid, in and of itself, does not require a rifle. In my time on the ambulance, there were some times I wished I could carry, but it was pointed out to me that if I needed the gun, I didn’t need to be there; that you protect yourself first (by absence) because there is nothing more useless than a dead medic; that the very first question is always always always, “Is the scene secure?” If the answer is no, you don’t belong there.

i have wondered but not asked who the hell asks a 17yr old kid to provide security for his car lot.... does the owner not sell enough cars to hire a real, bonded security agency??

All of this, to me says either that he was looking for a fight or knew the chance was high that one would find him.

To me, that leads to one conclusion: Stay the F away, especially if you’re going there on your own. Obv if you’re paid EMS, that is not a valid option.



Blessings,
Bill

I'll agree with you and several others on the matter of questioning the wisdom of him being anywhere near there - but not his wisdom in being lawfully armed based on his assessment of risk. If I go to downtown Indianapolis, I am armed. My purposes there do not require a firearm. I am no more "seeking out" conflict than he was that night. If a mob decides to come marching through Avon neighborhoods, I will be armed. I might even be sitting on my front porch. (I might not; who knows?) In that scenario, my purpose would almost certainly require a rifle. Even then, I would no more be "seeking out" conflict than he was that night.

But we have to be careful not to conflate the questioning if actions are wise with questioning whether those actions are morally or legally right.

There was only one group - one side - "seeking out" conflict that night. That group found the conflict they sought, by creating it. Mr. "Shoot me, n***a!" started shouting and threatening Rittenhouse, then started chasing him, and then threw something at him as he ran - something that could reasonably have been believed to be a Molotov cocktail or something similarly dangerous.

Everything that happened after that is all his fault, and his responsibility. Not Rittenhouse's fault or responsibility. He was the victim.

 

[jamil]

Wait what?
My take on this is we're passing judgment on the Kenosha Kid, and fleshing out the proper way for this to be handled the next time, if there is a next time, so we can be a better society. So for those preaching the stay at home message, what I read as "roll over and let the bad guys take over more", I feel like it is relevant.
I would have to say, the most dangerous place I go is church. Yea, maybe I don't get out much (or maybe I live/work in a really safe place). So when I'm reading this, and I'm sure I'm not alone, I'm literally hearing stay home from church. Now I know you are talking about walking downtown at midnight all geared up, but that's not really what those words (don't go if you feel the need to carry) mean.

You guys should understand the concept being discussed. It’s been discussed in many of the self defense threads on INGO over the years. And maybe it’s difficult without that context to get. Because many of us carry wherever legal, how can I go somewhere I wouldn’t go unless armed if I’m always armed? Maybe a statement that better represents the idea would be this. I would not go to downtown Louisville during a protest. It’s not safe. But if I thought, oh well, I’m armed, so I can just deal with whatever. That’s what I’m talking about, and I think what Bill is talking about. I’m not gonna think of being armed as a magic talisman that enables me to go into dangerous places that I wouldn’t go otherwise.

The riots are something different. There comes a time when people need to arm themselves and protect their own property. It’s not the time for that 17 year old kid from a different town, albeit only 20 miles away, to take on that duty. Nothing good came of his presence there, other than the people he treated. I’d say his presence there did more harm than good. He’s seen in the mainstream public as being the bad guy in all this. I don’t think that’s true, I don’t think he’s a bad kid at all. I don’t think he should have been charged. But that’s the reality. It was a lose/lose proposition, especially for him.

 

[chipbennett]

It is better to have a gun in times of no trouble than to have trouble in times of no gun.

As any True Hoosier knows: it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

("It", per Hoosier Horse Sense, can literally be anything.)

 

[larcat]

This is pretty much word for word the strategy the ACLU used in the 80s/90s to remove what was left of the KKK. There's some odd history there including if I recall correctly the family of a victim (Michael Donald) being given the deed to what was effectively the national "headquarters" in the civil suit.

When you tell people that all white people are racists, that denying it confirms they’re racist, that silence is violence, that to be the ally of black people, white people must be anti-racists, and that means fighting “racists”, that no lives matter until black lives matter, that all white people owe all black people, that all the problems in black communities is the fault of white people, that it is the right of black people and their “anti-racist” allies to riot, loot, and burn people’s businesses, THATS instigation in any sane universe.

Marquis Love punted a white guy’s head and said while in hiding, that he was afraid he’s going to jail for fighting a racist. He’s actually surprised that what he did was wrong; he was only doing what BLM told him to do! BLM is responsible for that to the extent that they conned him into believing a lie, that all white people are racists, and black people cannot be racists, and that violence is justified. Marquis Love is a racist, inspired by the racist words of BLM.

***damn straight, hold them accountable for that. Jail them. Make them pay reparations for all the government property they destroyed. And and let everyone who was harmed by their encouragement of violence upon them sue BLM for their losses. People should also sue every person identified as having participated in the destruction of their property and personal injury.

 

[chipbennett]

Boom.

View attachment 90632

But by all means, don’t be dangerous.

Exactly. I made this same point on TTAG. Until the turn of the 20th century, the military enlistment age was still 16. The Revolutionary War was fought mostly by teenagers and early 20-somethings. (Lafayette was 18 in 1776. Jefferson was an elder statesman as a 30-something.)

 

[chipbennett]

What is litmus for “instigated?” Those who explicitly call for violence and destruction, sure, I get it. Charge them. But from what I’ve seen, you’d have to really take a generous poetic license to turn those words into a legitimate charge. But admittedly, I don’t follow the ramblings of the BLM organization, so there might be something I am unaware.

Given that BLM gained national prominence as a result of Ferguson, this seems germane:

[video=youtube;WozrposHllg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WozrposHllg[/video]





(Extra space for video CSS)

 

[chipbennett]

You guys should understand the concept being discussed. It’s been discussed in many of the self defense threads on INGO over the years. And maybe it’s difficult without that context to get. Because many of us carry wherever legal, how can I go somewhere I wouldn’t go unless armed if I’m always armed? Maybe a statement that better represents the idea would be this. I would not go to downtown Louisville during a protest. It’s not safe. But if I thought, oh well, I’m armed, so I can just deal with whatever. That’s what I’m talking about, and I think what Bill is talking about. I’m not gonna think of being armed as a magic talisman that enables me to go into dangerous places that I wouldn’t go otherwise.

The riots are something different. There comes a time when people need to arm themselves and protect their own property. It’s not the time for that 17 year old kid from a different town, albeit only 20 miles away, to take on that duty. Nothing good came of his presence there, other than the people he treated. I’d say his presence there did more harm than good. He’s seen in the mainstream public as being the bad guy in all this. I don’t think that’s true, I don’t think he’s a bad kid at all. I don’t think he should have been charged. But that’s the reality. It was a lose/lose proposition, especially for him.

The owner of the private property who asked for his assistance thought it was his time. Why is it your, my, or anyone on INGO's place to make that decision for the property owner, or for him? (His parents are the only parties who have any say in the matter.)

As for nothing good coming of his actions: 1) the private property was not further vandalized, 2) the riots in Kenosha ended entirely, 3) he successfully defended himself against assault, and 4) a couple oxygen-wasting ****stains who likely would have attacked other peaceful, law-abiding people at some point are no longer part of society and can no longer terrorize the law-abiding.

 

[jamil]

While we’re talking about holding instigators financially and criminally responsible, let’s include the press. I’ll reluctantly give them a pass for reporting so much wrong with the Blake shooting, but now that more facts are out, they should be correcting the original narrative. He was not shot for simply walking to his car while Black. It wasn’t his car and he did not have the owner’s permission to use it. He was not a hero breaking up a fight between two women. He was the subject of the 911 call.

The complaint from the gf was that he wasn’t supposed to be there (perhapes an EPO was out on him?), and that he was fighting her to take her car keys and the car. The police were aware that there was a warrant for his arrest, and they were going to take him into custody regardless.

He resisted arrest arrest, was not responsive to less lethal force when the taser was deployed. He had a knife in his hands and refused to disarm when ordered, several times. That doesn’t mean he deserved to be shot, but when you are violent during an encounter with the police YOU put violence on the table in the encounter. So then bad things like this can happen. I don’t know that the officer was right. The other officers didn’t shoot. But given the circumstances that have come to light after the initial bull**** we were fed, the only crime committed during that encounter was committed by Blake.

All that, and that justifies a riot. And the media isn’t walking it back now that more facts are in evidence. They’re also responsible for all the damage and harm done because of it. They’re complicit. Should be able to sue the **** out of them. The first amendment shouldn’t be able to use the 1a as a cover for gross negligence and malice.

 

[Phase2]

True. It seems like today though the intended victim has to fear prosecution at the hand of an over zealous political prosecutor.

It's not overzealousness that causes those exercising 2A and self-defense rights to be charged, while not charging a single one of their attackers. These prosecutors are simply "on the other side".

 

[semperfi211]

 

[Phase2]

^

 

[jamil]

Gunman? They were pissed that someone extinguished their dumpster fire. Chased him, when he was caught, he turned and shot HIS assailant. The mob yelled GET HIM, he ran, they chased after him and tried to take his gun as he was trying to get to police. Yeah. He shot some people trying to harm him. That’s called “self-defense”.

 

[Slapstick]

I have my own opinions of the shooting in Kenosha but in reading about it one thing jumped out that I find a bit ironic. The first person shot was a convicted sex offender against children, he was shot in the head. The second person shot and killed was a convicted domestic batterer, he was shot in the heart. Third person was a convicted burglar and he was shot in the arm. What jumped out is this, a person who thinks it's okay to have sex with children quite right in their thinking, (shot in the head) The domestic batter had no love for his victims, (shot in the heart) and thief is missing a big part of his arm, (he won't be stealing with that hand for awhile if ever). Coincidence?

 

[jamil]

I have my own opinions of the shooting in Kenosha but in reading about it one thing jumped out that I find a bit ironic. The first person shot was a convicted sex offender against children, he was shot in the head. The second person shot and killed was a convicted domestic batterer, he was shot in the heart. Third person was a convicted burglar and he was shot in the arm. What jumped out is this, a person who thinks it's okay to have sex with children quite right in their thinking, (shot in the head) The domestic batter had no love for his victims, (shot in the heart) and thief is missing a big part of his arm, (he won't be stealing with that hand for awhile if ever). Coincidence?

Eh. Everything is a coincidence.

But anyway, it brings up a point about character assassination. They dug up a video showing Rittenhouse hitting a girl with no context, to impugn his character. And it does at least a little, with people who aren’t feminists. I mean, equality, right? Then they venerate people with actual criminal records. If the record of the kid is relevant, then so is the records of the people who were chasing him.

 

[larcat]

The breaking up a fight bit is *still* being trotted out. It's out in the ether now and continuing to shove the two bubbles further apart.

You have to remember, the media such as it is subsists on clicks. Stress, anger, confirmation bias are what results in clicks and they have no reason to retract. All under the shield of "it was being reported at the time" where "reported" means some random on Twitter.

While we’re talking about holding instigators financially and criminally responsible, let’s include the press. I’ll reluctantly give them a pass for reporting so much wrong with the Blake shooting, but now that more facts are out, they should be correcting the original narrative. He was not shot for simply walking to his car while Black. It wasn’t his car and he did not have the owner’s permission to use it. He was not a hero breaking up a fight between two women. He was the subject of the 911 call.

The complaint from the gf was that he wasn’t supposed to be there (perhapes an EPO was out on him?), and that he was fighting her to take her car keys and the car. The police were aware that there was a warrant for his arrest, and they were going to take him into custody regardless.

He resisted arrest arrest, was not responsive to less lethal force when the taser was deployed. He had a knife in his hands and refused to disarm when ordered, several times. That doesn’t mean he deserved to be shot, but when you are violent during an encounter with the police YOU put violence on the table in the encounter. So then bad things like this can happen. I don’t know that the officer was right. The other officers didn’t shoot. But given the circumstances that have come to light after the initial bull**** we were fed, the only crime committed during that encounter was committed by Blake.

All that, and that justifies a riot. And the media isn’t walking it back now that more facts are in evidence. They’re also responsible for all the damage and harm done because of it. They’re complicit. Should be able to sue the **** out of them. The first amendment shouldn’t be able to use the 1a as a cover for gross negligence and malice.

 

[dusty88]

Gunman? They were pissed that someone extinguished their dumpster fire. Chased him, when he was caught, he turned and shot HIS assailant. The mob yelled GET HIM, he ran, they chased after him and tried to take his gun as he was trying to get to police. Yeah. He shot some people trying to harm him. That’s called “self-defense”.

I agree that looks more than 90% likely. However, I haven't seen video at the moment just before redshirt is seen chasing Rittenhouse. We have to acknowledge the possibility Rittenhouse did something else to provoke redshirt. It seems extremely unlikely based on his demeanor.

 

[ghuns]

Given that BLM gained national prominence as a result of Ferguson, this seems germane:

[video=youtube;WozrposHllg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WozrposHllg[/video]





(Extra space for video CSS)

Look... I'm not saying this dude is right. But have you ever been to Ferguson?

Burning it down could easily been seen as an improvement.

 

[jamil]

I agree that looks more than 90% likely. However, I haven't seen video at the moment just before redshirt is seen chasing Rittenhouse. We have to acknowledge the possibility Rittenhouse did something else to provoke redshirt. It seems extremely unlikely based on his demeanor.

He did do something that provoked redshirt. He was on the side protecting property from the mob. Minutes prior to the first shot, redshirt was confronting the "armed militia", specifically someone who looked like kyle, was dressed similarly, but was not him. But generally, the provocation was, if you're not with them, you're against them.

 

[chipbennett]

Look... I'm not saying this dude is right. But have you ever been to Ferguson?

Burning it down could easily been seen as an improvement.

Yes. I used to live in Breckenridge Hills - just a hop, skip, and a jump from Ferguson down the Rock Road.

 

[ghuns]

Yes. I used to live in Breckenridge Hills - just a hop, skip, and a jump from Ferguson down the Rock Road.

Yeah, I think we've talked about that. My kid lived lived in STL for awhile.

He took me on a field trip to a job site he was working at in Ferguson.

I didn't need to go twice.