Doorbell ditching

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

No. 
 

Tell that to George Zimmerman. And the prosecutor who tried to prosecute him. 
 

Kyle Rittenhouse would also like to speak to you. 
 

So would Lamar Putney. 

I could go on. 

I’m 100% confident there are other people who used deadly force who were arrested and prosecuted, even if they were justified. 

There’s a right wing persecution complex where people are terrified that the government is coming for their right of self defense. I’m saying that’s somewhat justified. In fact, it’s the ONLY right wing alarmist dogma I think is mostly correct. 

Apparently it’s not? Which is it?

As the guy on this forum who has been involved in those investigations...NO, YOU are wrong.

 

You WILL be detained.  That does not mean you will be arrested.

 

I could go on.

 

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

As the guy on this forum who has been involved in those investigations...NO, YOU are wrong.

 

You WILL be detained.  That does not mean you will be arrested.

 

I could go on.

 

Ok. So those guys I mentioned weren't arrested (which is odd, because I remember their trials) and the right wing is wrong. Our right to self defense isn’t under attack. 

Edited April 19, 2023 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

@Jamie123 we use it differently than you are describing.  The short version: detained, temporarily held in custody (not necessarily handcuffed) while an investigation is conducted.  Arrested: physical custody where you will most likely be charged and quite likely go to jail.

[mirkwood]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Ok. So those guys I mentioned weren't arrested and the right wing is wrong. Out right to self defense is under attack. 

 

You are trying to use the two guys named as the be all end all to self defense shootings.  

 

To reiterate, in a self defense shooting you will be detained.  That does not mean you will be arrested.

[mirkwood]

4 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 Out right to self defense is under attack. 

 

I didn't say anything about that topic at all.  

[Jamie123]

15 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

@Jamie123 we use it differently than you are describing.  The short version: detained, temporarily held in custody (not necessarily handcuffed) while an investigation is conducted.  Arrested: physical custody where you will most likely be charged and quite likely go to jail.

Yes - our "arrest" would include  what you call "detained". Sometimes people are even arrested "by appointment". They come to the police station at an appointed time, wait in a waiting room. When their turn comes they are invited into an interview room, "arrested" (no question of handcuffs!), give a statement and are then free to go (though maybe with some nominal bail conditions). It is very common for a suspect to be arrested, questioned, and then released. (There is certainly no expectation of charges). Some murder inquiries involve multiple arrests before anyone is charged.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Jamie123

[NeuroTypical]

40 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Now, you need to tell the John Wayne wannabes who carry guns in their private home and think they can shoot children who just want their soccer ball back after it accidentally went into their yard. 

Whelp, you can tell people as much as you want, but at the end of the day, the US citizen will make their choices, and UK subjects will think we're all crazy.  That's why we have laws/courts/juries.  To hold people accountable for what comes out of their guns.  I mean, at this point, we're all just reacting to insufficient evidence in the Yarl/Lester case.  We don't know how things went down, we're just guessing based off of the number of people sharing favorable opinions of the victim, and the guy looks scary in his mugshot. 

 

13 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

And the fourth problem? The person you shot, even if totally justified, probably has friends, family, and even total strangers who will see you and your family as the enemy.

Yep - that's part of the 3rd problem.  Witness protection, or just plain old moving somewhere else, is absolutely a thing.  Rittenhouse sure the heck ain't in Wisconsin these days.  Plus, we're all waiting to see Rittenhouse do some suing of his own - the BBC and Biden for linking him to white supremacy, Whoopi for calling him a murderer.  We'll see.  But just last week, he countersued one of his attackers for assault: https://kenoshacountyeye.com/2023/04/14/kyle-rittenhouse-counter-sues-man-who-seemingly-tried-to-kill-him/

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Whelp, you can tell people as much as you want, but at the end of the day, the US citizen will make their choices

Oh, agree. 

 

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep - that's part of the 3rd problem.  Witness protection, or just plain old moving somewhere else, is absolutely a thing.  Rittenhouse sure the heck ain't in Wisconsin these days.  Plus, we're all waiting to see Rittenhouse do some suing of his own - the BBC and Biden for linking him to white supremacy, Whoopi for calling him a murderer.  We'll see.  But just last week, he countersued one of his attackers for assault: https://kenoshacountyeye.com/2023/04/14/kyle-rittenhouse-counter-sues-man-who-seemingly-tried-to-kill-him/

I’ll bet you the poor kid wishes he stayed home and played PlayStation that  night. 😞 

[Vort]

52 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

@Jamie123 we use it differently than you are describing.  The short version: detained, temporarily held in custody (not necessarily handcuffed) while an investigation is conducted.  Arrested: physical custody where you will most likely be charged and quite likely go to jail.

Yes - our "arrest" would include  what you call "detained". Sometimes people are even arrested "by appointment". They come to the police station at an appointed time, wait in a waiting room. When their turn comes they are invited into an interview room, "arrested" (no question of handcuffs!), give a statement and are then free to go (though maybe with some nominal bail conditions). It is very common for a suspect to be arrested, questioned, and then released. (There is certainly no expectation of charges). Some murder inquiries involve multiple arrests before anyone is charged.

mirkwood is vastly more an authority on this topic than am I, but let me clarify (and mirk can correct me if I'm wrong) that when police detain someone for an investigation, usually that simply means that person needs to stand there on the street or beside their car or the cop's car while the officer checks out ("investigates") the situation to determine what should happen next. Detaining someone is not a form of mini-arrest, but a way for an officer to control the comings and goings of potentially important people while he figures out what's going on in a given situation.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

 

I didn't say anything about that topic at all.  

Right, I did. Our right to self IS under attack, and prosecuting Zimmerman et al shows it. The awkward truth is that the right is correct about the issue but they can’t go the extra mile and see that it’s prosecutors, judges etc who do the most damage to our right to self defense. 
 

It’s either that or the right (and I for that matter) are wrong about the issue and there is no assault on our right to self defense. 

Edited April 19, 2023 by LDSGator

[Vort]

40 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ll bet you the poor kid wishes he stayed home and played PlayStation that  night. 😞

IMO, legally speaking Rittenhouse was 100% completely in the right and justified in his shooting. But trotting around holding a loaded semiautomatic rifle during a riot seems like such an obviously bad idea that I can't imagine telling my own child anything but, "Don't do something stupid like that."

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

IMO, legally speaking Rittenhouse was 100% completely in the right and justified in his shooting. But trotting around holding a loaded semiautomatic rifle during a riot seems like such an obviously bad idea that I can't imagine telling my own child anything but, "Don't do something stupid like that."

He was ungodly stupid, that’s for sure. 

[NeuroTypical]

Whelp, Rittenhouse was participating in the old-as-humans practice known as 'showing strength so those people don't try anything'.   

Consider this account after Joseph Smith's death:

Quote

Things had been hard since Joseph's death. Nauvoo wasn't allowed to use its police force, so bad men did what they wanted. They burned farms outside town and caused trouble in Nauvoo. Then some of the Latter-day Saint boys formed the "Whittling and Whistling Brigade." When one of the bad men came to town, the boys followed him everywhere, whistling and whittling pieces of wood with their pocketknives. There were too many boys for the man to fight, and they wouldn't let him out of their sight long enough for him to do anything bad, so finally he would leave and look for mischief someplace else.

Consider Provo UT, June/July 2020.  Of all the nationwide protests in the wake of George Floyd that turned violent and destructive, Provo had it's share at the end of June 2020.  The first night, they shot a 60 yr old man trying to drive past the people blocking the road.   Here - The BYU newspaper still has the video up.     Watch it.  Then watch it again.  Then put yourself into the shoes of Provo residents, as they watch the video, and hear that the protesters are mad, ennobled, and planning another protest the next night.   The next day, there's over 100 protesters on one side of the street, getting ready.  On the other side of the street we find perhaps twice that many counter-protesters, many openly armed, standing there calmly and making powerful eye contact with the protesters.   The 2nd protest does not turn violent.  My cool old uncle, who was one of the copiously armed ones, goes home after a nice quiet protest.  The Brigham Young statue gets vandalized, maybe some windows broken, and unrest basically fizzles out and dies in Provo.  

Things quiet down nationally, but a month later, Jacob Blake gets shot on Aug 23, and Kenosha Wisconsin immediately lights up again.  Rioting and arson and looting that night.  State of emergency declared that night. 

On the 24th, the Wisconsin National Guard gets activated to protect firefighters and critical infrastructure.  Countywide 8pm curfew.  That night, furniture stores, apartments, public buildings burn.  A news report shows armed citizens guarding a gas station.  A Kenosha citizens militia group creates a FB event called "Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property" that goes viral, with 5000 people indicating attendance by the next day.  Ungodly Stupid young boy Kyle does a stupid thing and answers the call.

On the 25th, the fire chief talked about 34 active fires, 30 businesses damaged or destroyed.  Lots and lots and lots and lots of armed citizens around.  Some in organized groups and on the streets, some just a handful of people hanging out at their businesses.  Police and Sherriff - the chiefs are releasing statements saying "we don't want the militias - they're not helping".  But cellphones on location show some law enforcement on the street handing over water bottles and thanking armed citizens.  

I'm having a hard time faulting the Whittling and Whistling brigade.  I'm having a hard time faulting my uncle and his 200 armed buddies.  And honestly, I'm not Kyle, and I don't want my kids to be Kyle, but I understand Kyle.  Although if I had my livelihood poured into a business in Kenosha, my guess is I'd be there, armed, barricaded behind walls as strong as I could make them.  

Anyway, just before midnight, young boy Kyle, one of the armed citizens, has it go down personally for him.  After a man chased him into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, Kyle shot him. He took off and was pursued by a crowd. After a man hit Kyle with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle, Kyle fired on his attacker.  When a third person pointed a handgun at him, Kyle fired at that guy too. 

Arming up to display force in order to protect property is an interesting thing.   Whether it's an advisable practice or not, is always arguable.   A valid question: How much more of Kenosha would have burned down, how many more possibly deadly assaults might have occurred, if the entire world didn't suddenly get glued to the TV to watch Kyle fight back?

[LDSGator]

23 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Whelp, Rittenhouse was participating in the old-as-humans practice known as 'showing strength so those people don't try anything'.   

Consider this account after Joseph Smith's death:

Consider Provo UT, June/July 2020.  Of all the nationwide protests in the wake of George Floyd that turned violent and destructive, Provo had it's share at the end of June 2020.  The first night, they shot a 60 yr old man trying to drive past the people blocking the road.   Here - The BYU newspaper still has the video up.     Watch it.  Then watch it again.  Then put yourself into the shoes of Provo residents, as they watch the video, and hear that the protesters are mad, ennobled, and planning another protest the next night.   The next day, there's over 100 protesters on one side of the street, getting ready.  On the other side of the street we find perhaps twice that many counter-protesters, many openly armed, standing there calmly and making powerful eye contact with the protesters.   The 2nd protest does not turn violent.  My cool old uncle, who was one of the copiously armed ones, goes home after a nice quiet protest.  The Brigham Young statue gets vandalized, maybe some windows broken, and unrest basically fizzles out and dies in Provo.  

Things quiet down nationally, but a month later, Jacob Blake gets shot on Aug 23, and Kenosha Wisconsin immediately lights up again.  Rioting and arson and looting that night.  State of emergency declared that night. 

On the 24th, the Wisconsin National Guard gets activated to protect firefighters and critical infrastructure.  Countywide 8pm curfew.  That night, furniture stores, apartments, public buildings burn.  A news report shows armed citizens guarding a gas station.  A Kenosha citizens militia group creates a FB event called "Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property" that goes viral, with 5000 people indicating attendance by the next day.  Ungodly Stupid young boy Kyle does a stupid thing and answers the call.

On the 25th, the fire chief talked about 34 active fires, 30 businesses damaged or destroyed.  Lots and lots and lots and lots of armed citizens around.  Some in organized groups and on the streets, some just a handful of people hanging out at their businesses.  Police and Sherriff - the chiefs are releasing statements saying "we don't want the militias - they're not helping".  But cellphones on location show some law enforcement on the street handing over water bottles and thanking armed citizens.  

I'm having a hard time faulting the Whittling and Whistling brigade.  I'm having a hard time faulting my uncle and his 200 armed buddies.  And honestly, I'm not Kyle, and I don't want my kids to be Kyle, but I understand Kyle.  Although if I had my livelihood poured into a business in Kenosha, my guess is I'd be there, armed, barricaded behind walls as strong as I could make them.  

Anyway, just before midnight, young boy Kyle, one of the armed citizens, has it go down personally for him.  After a man chased him into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, Kyle shot him. He took off and was pursued by a crowd. After a man hit Kyle with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle, Kyle fired on his attacker.  When a third person pointed a handgun at him, Kyle fired at that guy too. 

Arming up to display force in order to protect property is an interesting thing.   Whether it's an advisable practice or not, is always arguable.   A valid question: How much more of Kenosha would have burned down, how many more possibly deadly assaults might have occurred, if the entire world didn't suddenly get glued to the TV to watch Kyle fight back?

I've trained off and on in marital arts my entire life, so it’s been drilled into my head to avoid conflict at all costs because you are not as tough as you think you are, and even in the best circumstances just walk away because you’ll get hurt.
 

Is there a time to defend your community? Sure. But like you said before, you better be ready for the consequences, which are quite serious.

 

His age troubles me as well. He absolutely could have been like you described-someone trying to defend himself and help his community. Or, he could have been your average fatherless  19 year old, with high testosterone and looking for a fight. Especially an easy one to win.

Only he knows. 

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Right, I did. Our right to self IS under attack, and prosecuting Zimmerman et al shows it. The awkward truth is that the right is correct about the issue but they can’t go the extra mile and see that it’s prosecutors, judges etc who do the most damage to our right to self defense. 
 

It’s either that or the right (and I for that matter) are wrong about the issue and there is no assault on our right to self defense. 

Yes there is an assault on our rights to self defense and Zimmerman is but one cog in the puzzle.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm having a hard time faulting the Whittling and Whistling brigade.  I'm having a hard time faulting my uncle and his 200 armed buddies.  And honestly, I'm not Kyle, and I don't want my kids to be Kyle, but I understand Kyle.

As I wrote, I think Rittenhouse was completely justified—legally and even morally—in the shooting. I was very glad when he was correctly found not guilty in court. Anything else would have been an open miscarriage of justice.

But he was WALKING AROUND with a LOADED SEMIAUTO RIFLE during a RIOT. That's what we call "stupid". If people are hunkered down with weapons protecting their homes or places of business, I'm with them in spirit and might perhaps be with them in body if I felt it merited such a show of strength. I have no problem at all with legit self-defense. I do have a problem with people putting themselves in harm's way without a strong reason to do so and then having to shoot their way out. In my opinion, Rittenhouse's actions were legal, justifiable, and ultimately stupid. Unless he was defending his own life or someone else's, he would have been better served not running around with live munitions.

[Jamie123]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

As I wrote, I think Rittenhouse was completely justified—legally and even morally—in the shooting. I was very glad when he was correctly found not guilty in court. Anything else would have been an open miscarriage of justice.

But he was WALKING AROUND with a LOADED SEMIAUTO RIFLE during a RIOT. That's what we call "stupid". If people are hunkered down with weapons protecting their homes or places of business, I'm with them in spirit and might perhaps be with them in body if I felt it merited such a show of strength. I have no problem at all with legit self-defense. I do have a problem with people putting themselves in harm's way without a strong reason to do so and then having to shoot their way out. In my opinion, Rittenhouse's actions were legal, justifiable, and ultimately stupid. Unless he was defending his own life or someone else's, he would have been better served not running around with live munitions.

A few years ago, there was a guy on YouTube who called himself "Hannibal the Victor". You've probably never heard of him - he was a minor figure with only a small following - but he had a lot to say in the feminism vs. men's rights debate. This was long before the feminists became the "bad guys" and the trans-activists took over the "good guys" mantle. Hannibal was very much on the side of feminism, and supported the "reclaim the night" thing - when women were encouraged to go wandering around dangerous areas at night on the grounds that they had the "moral right" to do so, and if they were attacked it was the fault of their attackers - not the women themselves. Hannibal used to go on and on and on ad nausiam about how these women were "doing nothing wrong", and no blame should ever be attached to them whatever happened.

Now there was another much more prominent YouTuber called "Thunderf00t" - you probably have heard of him. I believe he's still going, though I long lost interest in following him. His real name is Phil Mason, and he's a British food scientist. Thunderf00t was behind the "draw Mohammed day" - where he encouraged his subscribers to draw pictures of the prophet Mohammed and post them online. Now this, under Islamic law, is blasphemy and can easily get you the Charlie Hebdoed. Nevertheless, Thunderf00t encouraged his followers to do just that, on the grounds that it was "doing nothing wrong", and that if any harm came to you it was the fault of the Islamic extremists - not the "draw Mohammed-ists".

I defy anyone to argue that Thunderf00t and Hannibal the Victor are not two peas in a pod.

Nevertheless they argued bitterly against each other on both issues, each using the same counter-arguments as the other. Thunderf00t took this in his stride, but Hannibal got angrier and angrier, and eventually filmed himself attacking a cornfield with a sword, while shouting "I hate you, Phil Mason!" (Thunderf00t thereafter referred to Hannibal as "Captain Stabby.)

Neither of them seemed to understand the difference between "immorality-blame" and "stupidity-blame". (I'm sure there are more scholarly words for these things, if anyone wants to tell me what they are.) Each switched the two of them around to support his own position, and neither saw the contradiction in this.

Hannibal the Victor has long gone - he fell out with his fellow feminists, particularly an individual called "Bewildered Ape" - who he long supported but eventually decided was an idiot. Ape by the way tried to get Thunderf00t fired from his day job, by writing to his employers about his "unacceptable opinions" - an act which earned him the epithet "Snitch Ape" in certain quarters. He failed (miserably) but that didn't stop a bunch of copycats bombarding Mason's bosses with "I think you ought to know..." type letters.

(I could write for hours on this topic...but I'll force myself to stop.)