What the #@$% is "provocation"? If your life is being threatened nothing else is rel

[renard_ruse]

What the #@$% is "provocation"? If your life is being threatened nothing else is rel

While obviously and unarguably the Kyle Rittenhouse case was ultimately resolved correctly and should never have been brought at all (and with any justice Kyle will sue the living daylights out of everyone involved in persecuting and lying about him), the one thing I am completely confused by is this bizarre concept of so-called "provocation." What the flying fuck is that?

I never heard of this bizarre idea that you can't defend yourself from someone who is trying to kill or do seriously bodily harm to you if you supposedly "provoked" them, whatever thats supposed to mean.

If someone is trying to kill you, they are trying to kill you. Period. Whatever happened prior to that should have no bearing on anything. This strange "provocation" concept means someone has a right to attack or kill someone if they were "offended" for some reason and the other party can't defend themselves in response? That doesn't even make sense.

There needs to be statutory laws passed saying that this bizarre "provocation" concept is irrelevant in self-defense. You still have a right to protect yourself. Period.

 

[Cubantripod]

You can't go looking for trouble and then when your intended victim fights back, claim self defense. Its why a criminal who breaks into your house can't shoot you and allege self defense because you fought back. He was in the wrong by breaking into you house.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

You can't go looking for trouble and then when your intended victim fights back, claim self defense. Its why a criminal who breaks into your house can't shoot you and allege self defense because you fought back. He was in the wrong by breaking into you house.

Tell that to george Zimmerman.

 

[ll74]

I'd just appreciate people who really aren't there to protest, stay the fuck home.

And as violence nor illegal behavior isn't protesting, that includes rioters and "tourists"

 

[WillJ8787]

While obviously and unarguably the Kyle Rittenhouse case was ultimately resolved correctly and should never have been brought at all (and with any justice Kyle will sue the living daylights out of everyone involved in persecuting and lying about him), the one thing I am completely confused by is this bizarre concept of so-called "provocation." What the flying fuck is that?

I never heard of this bizarre idea that you can't defend yourself from someone who is trying to kill or do seriously bodily harm to you if you supposedly "provoked" them, whatever thats supposed to mean.

If someone is trying to kill you, they are trying to kill you. Period. Whatever happened prior to that should have no bearing on anything. This strange "provocation" concept means someone has a right to attack or kill someone if they were "offended" for some reason and the other party can't defend themselves in response? That doesn't even make sense.

There needs to be statutory laws passed saying that this bizarre "provocation" concept is irrelevant in self-defense. You still have a right to protect yourself. Period.

It is amazingly simple... Let me explain it to all you racists. You are walking down a street at night and you see a black man with a hoody on walking towards you...you feel threatened by his approach and as he gets closer you draw your gun and shoot. You justify this as self-defense since this outdated concept only requires, you the shooter, to "feel threatened" and then to say "I was defending myself". Because you are a racist, you are "provoked" by the very presence of the focus of your racism....in this case a black man with a hoody on.

This same concept can be applied to the Arbuary case...he provoked these three racist crackers by having the adacity to jog in day light down a street. They were provoked by their inherent racism that he was and can only be up to no good.

 

[icanhelp1]

It is amazingly simple... Let me explain it to all you racists. You are walking down a street at night and you see a black man with a hoody on walking towards you...you feel threatened by his approach and as he gets closer you draw your gun and shoot. You justify this as self-defense since this outdated concept only requires, you the shooter, to "feel threatened" and then to say "I was defending myself". Because you are a racist, you are "provoked" by the very presence of the focus of your racism....in this case a black man with a hoody on.

This same concept can be applied to the Arbuary case...he provoked these three racist crackers by having the adacity to jog in day light down a street. They were provoked by their inherent racism that he was and can only be up to no good.

So, when a black man with a hoodie walks up to a 65 year old woman and cold cocks her, well, I guess that racist old lady should not have been there, right?

Maybe the actions of that fucking black man created a feeling of distrust based on past behavior and maybe it’s not racism at all, but fear.

The Arbuary case will work its way through the justice system and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[WillJ8787]

So, when a black man with a hoodie walks up to a 65 year old woman and cold cocks her, well, I guess that racist old lady should not have been there, right?

Maybe the actions of that fucking black man created a feeling of distrust based on past behavior and maybe it’s not racism at all, but fear.

The Arbuary case will work its way through the justice system and let the chips fall where they may.

You are describing a crime that should be prosecuted( if possible...if an ID can be made or if the criminal was on cct, etc)

What one person does is not ascribable to another. You are not responsible for the actions of anyone who is your skin color, ethnicity, etc.... ascribing blame, as you seem to be saying above, is exactly what racism is.

 

[jomar]

You can't go looking for trouble and then when your intended victim fights back, claim self defense. Its why a criminal who breaks into your house can't shoot you and allege self defense because you fought back. He was in the wrong by breaking into you house.

Here we agree. You can’t instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.

Some states are stand your ground in or out of the home. Others, you must try to retreat first in public.

 

[Lazaran]

Here we agree. You can’t instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.

Some states are stand your ground in or out of the home. Others, you must try to retreat first in public.

But you can be underage and illegally buy an AR-15, cross state lines and violate a curfew, leave the safety of a police line, brandish the illegally purchased AR-15 while confronting others violating curfew, and shoot them when they react to the provocation.

That ^ seems reasonable.

 

[CornusKousa]

While obviously and unarguably the Kyle Rittenhouse case was ultimately resolved correctly and should never have been brought at all (and with any justice Kyle will sue the living daylights out of everyone involved in persecuting and lying about him), the one thing I am completely confused by is this bizarre concept of so-called "provocation." What the flying fuck is that?

It's an excuse (D)'eez use to justify their terrorist comrades violently attacking people.

I'd just appreciate people who really aren't there to protest, stay the fuck home.

And as violence nor illegal behavior isn't protesting, that includes rioters and "tourists"

Why should we cater to the violent tendencies of a bunch of fucking terrorist???

Why shouldn't the savages who can't control themselves and act like civilized human beings stay home??

How about you and the comrades just stop rioting and attacking people??

 

[ll74]

It's an excuse (D)'eez use to justify their terrorist comrades violently attacking people.



Why should we cater to the violent tendencies of a bunch of fucking terrorist???

Why shouldn't the savages who can't control themselves and act like civilized human beings stay home??

How about you and the comrades just stop rioting and attacking people??

Hey fuckhead, quit attributing shit to me. I don't participate in or condone violence by anyone.

 

[CornusKousa]

Hey fuckhead, quit attributing shit to me.

I don't participate in or condone violence by anyone.

I'm not attributing shit... you defended the rotors again point blank saying if you're not with them, stay the fuck home.

I'm just asking you to explain why peaceful law abiding citizens should stay home so your precocious SJW terrorist comrades can riot and get violent???

Why so triggered by that question??

We know why

 

[ll74]

I'd just appreciate people who really aren't there to protest, stay the fuck home.

And as violence or illegal behavior isn't protesting, that includes rioters and "tourists"

I'm not attributing shit... you defended the rotors again point blank saying if you're not with them, stay the fuck home.

I'm just asking you to explain why peaceful law abiding citizens should stay home so your precocious SJW terrorist comrades can riot and get violent???

Why so triggered by that question??

We know why

You literally replied to the post where I told violent fuckheads to stay home, dipshit

You can't fucking read.

Go play in traffic

 

[CornusKousa]

You literally replied to the post where I told violent fuckheads to stay home, dipshit

You can't fucking read.

Go play in traffic

Protestors... rioters... you use those terms SO interchangeably for so long, it's impossible to tell what exactly you're saying sometimes.

They essentially mean the exact same thing now days no?

 

[ll74]

Protestors... rioters... you use those terms SO interchangeably for so long, it's impossible to tell what exactly you're saying sometimes.

They essentially mean the exact same thing now days no?

I'd say that's a comprehension issue problem of yours, as I've never had an issue between them. I also don't xonflate the two. I certainly don't use the terms interchangeably.

The ones that break the law aren't protestors. They are criminals.
That means trespasses, violent offenders, property destroyers

And if a person of a group breaks the law, that doesn't mean the group breaks the law....that's what you call conflation. (Actually, that might not be the most succinct term...it works clumsily though)

 

[jomar]

But you can be underage and illegally buy an AR-15, cross state lines and violate a curfew, leave the safety of a police line, brandish the illegally purchased AR-15 while confronting others violating curfew, and shoot them when they react to the provocation.

That ^ seems reasonable.

Are you confident that’s all what happened?

The pedo had already tried to start up with a couple of others with guns, from what I understand, before attacking KR for some reason. Maybe because of his youth, as has been conjectured. Then the other two idiots chased and were physically harassing a retreating KR, a guy who had just shot someone ffs, trying to get his gun. After the first guy KR was pretty shook up and probably did fear great bodily harm. And please note that the wounded one had a pistol that he admitted he pointed at KR for a moment, though I’m not convinced KR registered it.

But yeah, pretty fucked up all around.

 

[CornusKousa]

I'd say that's a comprehension issue problem of yours,

No, making fun of the "peaceful protesters = arson, looting, rape and murder" 'progressive' Democrats out there isn't a comprehension problem of mine.

as I've never had an issue between them.

I also don't xonflate the two. I certainly don't use the terms interchangeably.

Sure, just like all the other suddenly pro-Rittenhouse anti-BLM/AntiFa comrades out there.

 

[ll74]

No, making fun of the "peaceful protesters = arson, looting, rape and murder" 'progressive' Democrats out there isn't a comprehension problem of mine.



Sure, just like all the other suddenly pro-Rittenhouse anti-BLM/AntiFa comrades out there.

You just said so yourself....you can't tell the difference or perhaps you don't want to.

There is and I addressed illegal actions and protesting separately...sorry you have a problem understanding that

 

[CornusKousa]

But you can be underage and illegally buy an AR-15, cross state lines and violate a curfew, leave the safety of a police line, brandish the illegally purchased AR-15 while confronting others violating curfew, and shoot them when they react to the provocation.

That ^ seems reasonable.

That is a totally fabricated pile of lies.

Put the crack pipe down.... RAW/Salon/CNN/MSNBC lied to you.

Crossing state lines is not a crime.
He never brandished, open carry is legal.
He didn't illegally purchase an AR-15.
He shot them because they violently attacked them, on film for everyone to plainly see ... that's why he was acquitted on self defense.

Getting shot and killed because they were dumb enough to violently attack an armed person doesn't make your pedo and wife beating buddies the victims laz. You and the comrades are just WRONG, you're the violent bad guys.

 

[CornusKousa]

You just said so yourself....you can't tell the difference or perhaps you don't want to.

Acknowledging a difference is how WHITE SUPREMACY is promulgated in this country.

You're a RACIST!!!!

There is and I addressed illegal actions and protesting separately...sorry you have a problem understanding that

LMFAO!!!! I'm loving the sudden 180 role reversals post Rittenhouse.

Ok ok ok....let's see how much of a "progressive" I can be with this.

/"progressive' mode:

There is NOTHING ILLEGAL about protesting, the only thing illegal was the RAPID FIRE FULLASSAULTDEATHMACHINEGUN that the child bought illegally and crossed state lines with to threaten PEACEFUL PROTESTORS.

/ end "progressive" mode:
/ start "nazi" mode:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/dXtqbOt96XReDeGDdF/200.gif

 

[ll74]

Acknowledging a difference is how WHITE SUPREMACY is promulgated in this country.

You're a RACIST!!!!



LMFAO!!!! I'm loving the sudden 180 role reversals post Rittenhouse.

Ok ok ok....let's see how much of a "progressive" I can be with this.

/"progressive' mode:

There is NOTHING ILLEGAL about protesting, the only thing illegal was the RAPID FIRE FULLASSAULTDEATHMACHINEGUN that the child bought illegally and crossed state lines with to threaten PEACEFUL PROTESTORS.

/ end "progressive" mode:
/ start "nazi" mode:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/dXtqbOt96XReDeGDdF/200.gif

No reversal here...you have me confused with someone else. Feel free to prove otherwise with direct quotes.

I've always held that Rittenhouse illegally carried a weapon...I still believe that. I have believed that he did not act in self defense, but have openly acknowledged and accepted the ruling.

I continue to believe people escalating conflict by travelling to cause or meet it is a bad thing.

 

[CornusKousa]

No reversal here...you have me confused with someone else. Feel free to prove otherwise with direct quotes.

OH yea you were totally pro-self defense and steel penis substitute.

 

[ll74]

OH yea you were totally pro-self defense and steel penis substitute.

I acknowledged and accepted the ruling. That's not a reversal. It's called moving on.

 

[WillJ8787]

Protestors... rioters... you use those terms SO interchangeably for so long, it's impossible to tell what exactly you're saying sometimes.

They essentially mean the exact same thing now days no?

Nope and never has for any of us.
Peaceful protests are the majority of what happens most of the time....even the Trump rally on Jan. 6th starts out as peaceful.

The Trump rally is the perfect example for you all to understand what many of mean by " peaceful protests". It started as just a rally, with a lot of charged up rhetoric about what 45 and this group of supports want....that is all fine. It is the same as all the peaceful protests that occurred in 2020.

It devolved into a violent, angry mob that rioted and looted on and in the Capitol Building. Most of the rally folks left after the rally...they abided by the law and the constitution regarding free speech and protests. The small group that rioted into the Capitol did not....they broke the law.

It is exactly the same for the vast majority(above 90%) of the protests in 2020.

Is that clear enough....or do you just want to engage in propaganda for a side?

 

[HisArpy]

I acknowledged and accepted the ruling. That's not a reversal. It's called moving on.

Except, per the court, the DA and the Defense, Rittenhouse DID NOT "illegally carry" a weapon.

That entire concept is on you because you can't seem to acknowledge and accept the ruling and instead have to make up hateful racist shit to spew. But hey, nice try.