|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,604
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: psi]
#26903964 - 08/28/20 11:18 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psi said:
Quote:
Baby_Hitler said: I have to wonder if there are any peaceful protests going on in Kenosha. If there are, I haven't seen any coverage of them.
Here is an article on a protest described as peaceful.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/27/906642752/peaceful-protests-in-kenosha-wis-as-demonstrators-remember-shooting-victims
Thanks. You can always count on NPR!
-------------------- Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ (•_•) <) )~ ANTIFA / \ \(•_•) ( (> SUPER / \ (•_•) <) )> SOLDIERS / \
|
Frank Rizzo
Old whipper snapper


Registered: 06/12/18
Posts: 184
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26903968 - 08/28/20 11:18 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Koods your still saying the same thing over again keep trying maybe you say something new.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: The excuse he was defending property isnt valid. I cant shoot someone for breaking into somebody elses property. Thats not how it works.
Curfew is bullshit and is only meant to limit rights. However, there were multiple other laws broken by kyle that make his claim to self defense invalid as well.
Crossing state lines to participate in a riot (as a rioter or counter protester, doesnt matter), owning and open carrying an ar15 while underage, etc.
Im from south texas and even in texas you cant just shoot someone on your property. The invader has to have a clear exit and has to refuse to take that exit before you have a legal right to shoot them for being on your property.
This is why texas has lots of "trespassers shot on sight" signs. The sign is giving you fair warning and ample amounts of time to change course and walk away before being shot.
I'm saying the kid was there to protect property regardless if it was his or not which is deferent then saying he is claiming self defense in terms of property the kids justification for being there was one of the many reasons it was the opposite of riot. The kid was being chased having his life threatened and he defended himself all other points don't matter his reason for being out after curfew has no point in why one cant defend themselves.
So in Texas if you come home from whatever place late one night and there is a riot at your neighbors house are you going to watch their house burn down and hope they don't come to your house? I would hope at minimum you get what you need and stand in front of your house. Now on the legality of him being there if the open carry hunting clause in being aloud to have a rifle etc yes like I said before he's not coming out untouched but murder just don't see sticking.
Edited by Frank Rizzo (08/28/20 11:20 AM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,308
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 44 minutes, 14 seconds
|
|
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: you have to remember someone simply holding or possessing a gun to alot of people on this forum is threatening and "looking for trouble" I know its crazy but we have to respect thier individual opinion.
Driving 30 miles to a scene of civil unrest armed with an ar-15 is absolutely “looking for trouble.” No rational person could conclude anything else.
A few months ago Trump and DHS highlighted the Riot Act to prosecute people who cross state lines to participate in a riot.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/federal-law-can-be-used-charge-violent-rioters
Quote:
The Federal Anti-Riot Act (18 U.S.C § 2101) allows the federal government to go after anyone who “travels in interstate or foreign commerce” or who uses “any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio or television” to “incite a riot; or to organize, promote, encourage, participate in or carry on a riot; or to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.”
So anyone who travels from out of state or uses his phone or his computer with the specific intent to instigate and participate in riots is violating federal law. It also applies to those who “aid or abet” anyone else to carry out such acts. Someone found guilty can be fined, imprisoned for up to five years, or both for each violation.
The law contains an unusual provision that shows Congress was quite serious about using it to stop the type of anarchy we are seeing in some of our nation’s cities today. It directs the attorney general, when he believes that any person has violated the law, to “proceed as speedily as possible with a prosecution … and with any appeal” that may result “from any decision adverse to the government resulting from such prosecution.”
Congressional intent is clear here: when riots break out, the executive branch must act as quickly as possible to go after those who are fomenting mayhem.
This provision was used successfully to prosecute three white supremacists who traveled from California to Virginia in August 2017 to incite and organize violence in protests being held at the University of Virginia.
In May of last year, a federal district court in U.S. v. Daley ruled that this statute was constitutional, rejecting the defendants’ arguments that it was not within the power of Congress to pass such a criminal law.
I expect trump to keep his word and prosecute not only Kyle Rittenhouse but the people who encouraged him to drive to Wisconsin to engage in ongoing riots. Is he a law and order president, or not?
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,308
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 44 minutes, 14 seconds
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: koods]
#26903993 - 08/28/20 11:32 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm saying the kid was there to protect property
And he had no legal right or authority to do so
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Frank Rizzo
Old whipper snapper


Registered: 06/12/18
Posts: 184
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: koods]
#26904012 - 08/28/20 11:42 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/federal-law-can-be-used-charge-violent-rioters
Quote:
The Federal Anti-Riot Act (18 U.S.C § 2101) allows the federal government to go after anyone who “travels in interstate or foreign commerce” or who uses “any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio or television” to “incite a riot; or to organize, promote, encourage, participate in or carry on a riot; or to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.”
So anyone who travels from out of state or uses his phone or his computer with the specific intent to instigate and participate in riots is violating federal law. It also applies to those who “aid or abet” anyone else to carry out such acts. Someone found guilty can be fined, imprisoned for up to five years, or both for each violation.
The law contains an unusual provision that shows Congress was quite serious about using it to stop the type of anarchy we are seeing in some of our nation’s cities today. It directs the attorney general, when he believes that any person has violated the law, to “proceed as speedily as possible with a prosecution … and with any appeal” that may result “from any decision adverse to the government resulting from such prosecution.”
Congressional intent is clear here: when riots break out, the executive branch must act as quickly as possible to go after those who are fomenting mayhem.
This provision was used successfully to prosecute three white supremacists who traveled from California to Virginia in August 2017 to incite and organize violence in protests being held at the University of Virginia.
In May of last year, a federal district court in U.S. v. Daley ruled that this statute was constitutional, rejecting the defendants’ arguments that it was not within the power of Congress to pass such a criminal law.
As I pointed out previously that was the exact opposite of his intent, does that make sense how your point is still not valid and only furthers the points that I'm making.
Sorry open carry after curfew dose not equate to riot inciting.
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
I'm saying the kid was there to protect property
And he had no legal right or authority to do so
So you're saying he is going to catch a charge for illegally trying to protect property, when that charge comes out source it and call me an idiot.
Edited by Frank Rizzo (08/28/20 11:46 AM)
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: Frank Rizzo] 2
#26904025 - 08/28/20 11:53 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Participating in a riot doesnt mean he went there to riot. He was participating as a counter protester with a goal of putting himself in danger to defend property that wasnt his. He absolutely participated.
If 2 teams are playing football against eachother, it doesnt matter which team you are on, youre both participating in the sport. Get it?
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,308
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 44 minutes, 14 seconds
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: Frank Rizzo]
#26904036 - 08/28/20 12:00 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
No I’m not saying he’s going to catch a charge for illegally trying to protect property because that in itself is not illegal. What I said is he didn’t have the right to protect that property. I see this a lot with people who don’t understand these issues. Just because you don’t have a right to do something doesn’t mean it’s illegal.
His intent was very clear. He believed there would be rioting in Kenosha. He went to Kenosha. Therefore he intended to participate in a riot. Not only did he intend to participate, he did participate. It’s absurd to think that someone who fires dozens of rounds in a frenzy of violence during a riot isn’t participating in that riot.
The heritage foundation article didn’t quite interpret the law properly. Violating the law doesn’t require inciting AND participating, it’s inciting OR participating.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (08/28/20 12:02 PM)
|
Frank Rizzo
Old whipper snapper


Registered: 06/12/18
Posts: 184
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26904050 - 08/28/20 12:08 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Participating in a riot doesnt mean he went there to riot. He was participating as a counter protester with a goal of putting himself in danger to defend property that wasnt his. He absolutely participated.
If 2 teams are playing football against eachother, it doesnt matter which team you are on, youre both participating in the sport. Get it?
Protesting or counter protesting is not rioting, you realize those are two entirely different things right? It's not illegal to defend property now the rules of engagement are very specific on how you can defend that property but that does not come into play in this scenario.
Kid was running away from people with the intent to commit serious bodily harm at minimal and you want someone in that situation to lay down and be a punching bag I feel sorry for your own.
Koods... So now they interrupted it wrong and I should go by your interpretation, don't get offended if I don't respond to you in this thread anymore as we are at the point of agree to disagree on this subject.
Edited by Frank Rizzo (08/28/20 12:14 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,308
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 44 minutes, 14 seconds
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: Frank Rizzo]
#26904085 - 08/28/20 12:22 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The actual text of the law is in the previous paragraph
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,360
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: Frank Rizzo] 1
#26904094 - 08/28/20 12:25 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Frank Rizzo said: Also open carry isn't looking for trouble if that were the case it would be illegal.
I don't feel sorry for anyone shot chasing after a person with a gun expecting them to hand it over and be a punching bag, the police wont even do that they will seek cover and take out the threat.
Link a clip and timestamp where the kid went looking for trouble...
Open carry was illegal for him.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,308
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 44 minutes, 14 seconds
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: koods]
#26904104 - 08/28/20 12:29 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Protesting or counter protesting is not rioting, you realize those are two entirely different things right?
Protesting at a riot may not be rioting, but it is participating in a riot. It’s not that difficult a concept. Confronting people who are smashing windows is participating in a riot. If you bring a gun to the scene of a riot to protect property from rioters you are participating in that riot. SHOOTING MULTIPLE PEOPLE AT A RIOT IS ACTUALLY BEING A RIOTER.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: koods]
#26904107 - 08/28/20 12:31 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The language is pretty clear. There's a reason the law doesnt say it's illegal to burn property, cause mayhem, etc.
It says it's illegal to cross state lines to "participate in or carry on" a riot. It doesnt matter what side youre on dude. He participated in, but DID NOT initially carry on, a riot which is still in violation of that law.
He may not have been rioting at first, or carrying on a riot, but he did participate in what was deemed a riot. He doubled down on participation, and in fact assisted in carrying on, a riot the moment he raised his gun.
--------------------
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: koods]
#26904226 - 08/28/20 01:31 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Protesting or counter protesting is not rioting, you realize those are two entirely different things right?
Protesting at a riot may not be rioting, but it is participating in a riot. It’s not that difficult a concept. Confronting people who are smashing windows is participating in a riot. If you bring a gun to the scene of a riot to protect property from rioters you are participating in that riot. SHOOTING MULTIPLE PEOPLE AT A RIOT IS ACTUALLY BEING A RIOTER.
At least now you can admit that whats going on now is rioting and not peaceful protesting. Which you've been parroting since day one
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: MagicMush123]
#26904236 - 08/28/20 01:35 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
One city is not representative of the whole nation.
Nobody here has ever denied the existence of riots in these protests.
What has been said is that the majority are peaceful, but riots are expected and are one of the only ways to get the elite to pay attention.
The majority of these protests are peaceful. Again a couple major cities are hardly representative of the whole
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: koods]
#26904242 - 08/28/20 01:36 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: The first line of the police statement is all you need to know: the city was under curfew.
If only you would have known that when we discussed the police pushing of Martin Gugino.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26904254 - 08/28/20 01:39 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
To say that they're rioting to get the elites attention is laughable they're rioting because they're animals and want free stuff. Rioting and looting is completely self serving and in no way helps their cause. In fact, it hurts it
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
Koods isnt arguing that curfew is just.
He's arguing that objectively, kyle broke the law. So did guigino, but again breaking curfew law, in my opinion, is just in itself.
Guigino also didnt shoot 3 people in pursuit of breaking curfew. Bad example and highly intellectually dishonest dude.
Regardless, all the right wingers here condemned guigino for busting his dome at the hands of police while breaking curfew, but defend kyle after killing 2 people while breaking curfew.
Do you not see an issue with this insane double standard?
I dont care if kyle broke curfew cause i dont believe in it. Objectively though, he broke the law and killed 2 in pursuit of breaking the law
--------------------
|
Psilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,187
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: MagicMush123]
#26904268 - 08/28/20 01:48 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rioting and looting is completely self serving and in no way helps their cause. In fact, it hurts it
How do you explain the major reforms that happened with the LAPD that was a direct result of the riots in the 90s ?
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: Psilynut2]
#26904276 - 08/28/20 01:52 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Psilynut2 said:
Quote:
Rioting and looting is completely self serving and in no way helps their cause. In fact, it hurts it
How do you explain the major reforms that happened with the LAPD that was a direct result of the riots in the 90s ?
Christopher dorner was proof the lapd didn't change lol
|
Psilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,187
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: Yall watching the civil war start? [Re: MagicMush123]
#26904282 - 08/28/20 01:56 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So no adult answer for a serious questions ? This is shit you can look up , it’s written on paper . Why did it happen ?
|
|