Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

1
While the jury may have got it right, there's a LOT of work that needs to be done.

I don't know about ya'll, but I have BIG problems with armed militias at protests, regardless of what their cause is; right or left. Even without militias, I have serious issues with people openly displaying firearms at a protest. That is intimidation with the threat of violence, and IMO should be addressed with some new laws. Unfortunately, I'm not sure those laws would pass SCOTUS. Seems like a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment, but I don't sense America is interested in such things.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

2
Having been in protest spaces where small groups were acting as "security" for the protesters, I see your point. Some of those who were ostensibly acting as "security" forces had questionable motives--and a few were openly exhibiting "Boogaloo Boi" behaviors.

I see little reason for someone in "protest security" to be wearing a load out vest with six or more 30-round magazines for that AR-platform rifle, a battle helmet, etc., although I can see reason for wearing comms gear. The thigh-mounted holster was overkill, if you would pardon the pun.

However, I also see the point of protest organizers wanting some sort of deterrent against, say, a IIIpers (or 3pers) counter-protest. And I have been asked to carry by an organizer at least a couple times, even if only a concealed pistol or two.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

3
Agreed. There should have been NOT ONE open carry on either side of political spectrum in Kenosha. Police should NEVER have allowed one civilian with a rifle - they should have stopped them, disarmed them and thrown them in a paddy wagon - let the DA sort it out later. Instead they were thanking all the mall ninjas and militant knee jerk MF'ers.
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw." "COVID can fix STUPID!"
The greatest, most aggrieved mistake EVER made in USA was electing DJT as POTUS.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

4
Personally I'd never go to a protest armed with anything except maybe pepper spray or a taser. I'd probably just stand on the side cheering on the protesters. Some local authorities have banned guns under emergency powers, every state is different. Kenosha was under a declared state of emergency.

IIRC in the Rittenhouse case there weren't any protests where the shootings took place. There were roaming groups looting and setting fires and some were armed.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

6
DougB1946 wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:10 am I wonder if these vigilantes understand the legal and financial effects of pulling the trigger or of false arrest.
Oh yes, after the expense of a criminal trial there are civil trials unless you're in one of these states.
Self-defense laws in at least 23 states (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee West Virginia and Wisconsin) provide civil immunity under certain self- defense circumstances.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and ... round.aspx
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

7
Agreed, protests are no place for firearms, although historically, it seems fairly normal for some firearms to be present. It is possible that SCOTUS would consider protests as sensitive time and place. There are chilling effects of free speech. But then there's the problem of defining what is a "protest" and when does it become a riot.

California bans firearms at protests, even the only legal avenue of carry here (concealed).

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

8
Philosophically speaking, a government needs to have a monopoly on violence. When armed militias are present, yet the National Guard isn't; the Governor is not doing his/her job.

Now during Trump, that was kinda understandable, he's the CinC and you don't want to turn control of the situation over to Trump. But Trump isn't in office anymore... so when we see large protests where long arms are on display, the freaking National Guard fucking-A better be present.

Our elected officials are not doing their jobs!!!

I'm not sure you can arrest such people though, because that's legal in most states...which is another HUGE freaking problem. BY DESIGN, we're abdicating the government monopoly on violence. I swear, in America if there's a bad idea we're first in line.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

10
'Vigilante' driver plows into group protesting Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal

Several people protesting against Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal were injured when a car drove into their demonstration in Connecticut.

About 15-20 protesters were blocking portions of a roadway, holding signs and chanting Saturday evening in Manchester when a black car with Massachusetts place drove toward them, and organizers believe the man intended to hurt them, reported WTIC-TV.

"He was angry," said Ivelisse Correa, of Black Lives Matter 860. "It looked like he was looking for a reason and he found one. You could tell in his face. The passenger was screaming bloody murder."

Correa said about six people were struck by the car and four of them injured, including a man whose foot was run over and a 60-year-old woman who was struck head-on.

Police are investigating the incident but declined to offer any specifics about a possible suspect or his motives, but Correa said the incident highlights the issues involved in the Rittenhouse trial.

"This is nothing more than another example of people deputizing themselves against others to police against their own politics and views," Correa said.

BLM860 released a statement making a similar point.

"Vigilante emboldened by the Rittenhouse verdict commits attempted vehicular homicide against jaywalking protesters who were armed and showed superhuman amounts of restraint," the group said in a statement.

The protesters said they were allowing vehicles to pass during green lights.
https://www.rawstory.com/driver-hits-protesters/

It will be interesting what the excuse given by the driver as to why they did the incident.

This while in Wisconsin we have another SUV in a deadly drive through.

https://www.rawstory.com/waukesha-parade-suv/

Don't need guns "have vehicle will kill".
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

11
I'm not in favor of another gun law. If states where open carry is legal did, then there would be law suits challenging them. In a way I think it would be easier to just ban them when a city, county or state declares a state of emergency, but again that would have to be narrowly tailored to the type of event not giving any politician carte blanche. Permitted events and civil unrest yes, but a natural disaster maybe not.

National Guard (weekend warriors) aren't generally trained as peace officers or armed, some units are MPs though. Yes, civil authority broke down in Kenosha.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

12
highdesert wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:01 pm I'm not in favor of another gun law. If states where open carry is legal did, then there would be law suits challenging them. In a way I think it would be easier to just ban them when a city, county or state declares a state of emergency, but again that would have to be narrowly tailored to the type of event not giving any politician carte blanche. Permitted events and civil unrest yes, but a natural disaster maybe not.

National Guard (weekend warriors) aren't generally trained as peace officers or armed, some units are MPs though. Yes, civil authority broke down in Kenosha.
I'm not just talking Kenosha...I'm talking the past 1.5 years. Armed militias, even left leaning ones are a REALLY bad idea.

And yeah the National Guard are not trained in law enforcement...none of the Army really is. But they can stand opposed to an armed militia; that they are qualified for.

Anytime there's an armed militia in the street, there should be armed National Guard standing right in front of them. Trust me those "weekend warriors" would go through the Gravy Seals like a hot knife through butter.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

13
FrontSight wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:14 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:01 pm I'm not in favor of another gun law. If states where open carry is legal did, then there would be law suits challenging them. In a way I think it would be easier to just ban them when a city, county or state declares a state of emergency, but again that would have to be narrowly tailored to the type of event not giving any politician carte blanche. Permitted events and civil unrest yes, but a natural disaster maybe not.

National Guard (weekend warriors) aren't generally trained as peace officers or armed, some units are MPs though. Yes, civil authority broke down in Kenosha.
I'm not just talking Kenosha...I'm talking the past 1.5 years. Armed militias, even left leaning ones are a REALLY bad idea.

And yeah the National Guard are not trained in law enforcement...none of the Army really is. But they can stand opposed to an armed militia; that they are qualified for.

Anytime there's an armed militia in the street, there should be armed National Guard standing right in front of them. Trust me those "weekend warriors" would go through the Gravy Seals like a hot knife through butter.
The only question is how may of the “weekend Warriors “ would be on the side of the Militias? Hopefully none, but hat would be a pipe dream.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

14
Guard and Ohio St. will just be a blip as to what will happen should turd and/or one of his acolytes returns to the oval office. If this POS ever returns to office I can only imagine how horrific it would be for any protest by left or POC.
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw." "COVID can fix STUPID!"
The greatest, most aggrieved mistake EVER made in USA was electing DJT as POTUS.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

16
In many states open carry is legal and the police can not do anything about it. In many states concealed carry permits do not exclude public gatherings, protests, etc.

Some would argue that there is a need for protestors to be armed so they are not simply abused by counter protesters or even the police. The argument the Black Panthers had is still valid in many communities.

Since the far Right is eager to embrace their second amendment rights at protests, and are kind of bullies. What are our choices?

If your state / City allows open carry you can not protest, because the other side will have guns, or show up and deal with it.

I find the cries that the police should protect us and unarm our opponents a fantasy.

Washington DC has crazy strict gun laws and still people showed up with guns and bombs on Jan 6. If it was legal open carry, there would have been thousands of AR-15s and hundreds of thousands of live rounds.

Public protests may become too dangerous to attend. And I'm going to get booed for this. But if we can't control those on our side to not do vandalism, arson, burglary, etc. We should not expect the police to be on our side.
Old School
The best upgrade for you firearm is always instruction and practice.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

17
Let's not forget to focus on the root cause of this, not the carrying of guns in public.

Fear is the root cause. The world has allowed the internet to be used freely to create divisions and stoke the fires thereof. We see the result in this stochastic terrorism that looks like self defense. Sure, he was threatened. He would not have been threatened had he not gone there carrying a gun, eh.

Fear creates the fertile field wherein fascism grows. That's where we should focus. They're afraid of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fear can be diffused by showing how making it fair for everyone is a good thing.

Tall order, I know.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
They say that Cain caught Abel rollin' loaded dice
Ace of Spades behind his ear and him not thinkin' twice

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

19
Oldschool wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:27 pm Public protests may become too dangerous to attend. And I'm going to get booed for this. But if we can't control those on our side to not do vandalism, arson, burglary, etc. We should not expect the police to be on our side.
If someone commits 'vandalism, arson, burglary, etc.', for whatever reason, they are NOT on my side.
"I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality" - George Washington

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

20
The root cause is a failure of leadership on so many levels. Of course the extremely unequitable situation with law enforcement. But even then, the second armed protesters are present, they need to be opposed by overwhelming numbers from either law enforcement or military. That's how these things are supposed to be handled. If the leadership was doing their jobs, we wouldn't need armed protesters on any side. We're settling for way too little from our representatives. This happens because we tolerate it.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

21
Regardless of all the peaceful protests, some elements were responsible for over 50 million in damages to mostly privately owned businesses. Those elements looked like the peaceful protesters and were shouting the same outrage as the peaceful protesters. Perhaps we can make the distinction, but many lump the groups together.

The right wing idiots I hate showed up and can point to numerous instances where they protected bussiness from looters and arsonists. The police largely stood by as did the peaceful protesters.

I don't condone the ideology of the far right who showed up to protect the bussiness, but I also can't condone the left that turns a blind eye to the destruction and crime without any effort to stop it. The message that should have brought empathy, got drowned out by the personification of the stereotype that caused the shooting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest
Old School
The best upgrade for you firearm is always instruction and practice.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

22
There are too many times in our nations history when the police were abusing its citizens. If protesters were not armed against police and the KKK, the civil rights movement would have been different.

I believe in non-violent protest. But not harmless protest. You have to be able to defend yourself to be taken seriously. Would MLK have had the same impact if he wasn't the less threatening option vs Malcolm and the Panthers?

https://www.npr.org/2014/06/05/31907215 ... s-movement
Old School
The best upgrade for you firearm is always instruction and practice.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

23
FrontSight wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:43 am Philosophically speaking, a government needs to have a monopoly on violence. When armed militias are present, yet the National Guard isn't; the Governor is not doing his/her job.
Here's your problem. The Constitution promises a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Thus the government cannot hold that monopoly, because power derives from the consent of the governed. The Second Amendment implies that violence is a protected right of the states, through state militias . The National Guard is the current legal incarnation of those, through the Militia Act of 1903 - not the illegally self-organized paramilitary groups that claim the name. OTOH, the Fourteenth Amendment implies that violence is a protected right of the people that cannot be infringed by the states, incorporated per McDonald v. Chicago.

All of which means the people have an individual right to arms - but the state has a collective right to organize the militia, and you don't. Of course, IANAL.
CDFingers wrote: Let's not forget to focus on the root cause of this, not the carrying of guns in public.

Fear is the root cause. The world has allowed the internet to be used freely to create divisions and stoke the fires thereof. We see the result in this stochastic terrorism that looks like self defense. Sure, he was threatened. He would not have been threatened had he not gone there carrying a gun, eh.

Fear creates the fertile field wherein fascism grows. That's where we should focus. They're afraid of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fear can be diffused by showing how making it fair for everyone is a good thing.

Tall order, I know.

CDFingers
Absolutely this. Fear is the mind killer.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

24
FrontSight wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:25 am While the jury may have got it right, there's a LOT of work that needs to be done.

I don't know about ya'll, but I have BIG problems with armed militias at protests, regardless of what their cause is; right or left. Even without militias, I have serious issues with people openly displaying firearms at a protest. That is intimidation with the threat of violence, and IMO should be addressed with some new laws. Unfortunately, I'm not sure those laws would pass SCOTUS. Seems like a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment, but I don't sense America is interested in such things.
Unfortunately, with the rittenhouse verdict, this is going to become commonplace. Armed 'security' in the name of protecting 'counter protestors'..some dim bulb that was arrested at the Jan 6th insurrection is claiming he was 'protecting the 'peaceful', pro trump protesters from the violent antifa mob'..complete BS, of course, there weren't any 'antifa' but...and confront any of these fascists, maybe get shot.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

25
I worked for a high end private security company long ago. We had a division that was called when employees would strike. We had teams of 4, 2 had video cameras and 2 were there to protect them.

I think small teams of photographers and medics accompanied by security should be part of the protest planning. It is amazing how quickly people stop criminal activity when you have a camera on them. Security is defensive observation and documentation.

We will have a hard time making reforms to the police if we do not stand against lawlessness ourselves.
Old School
The best upgrade for you firearm is always instruction and practice.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron