NBA games postponed today p14 Players decide to resume Playoffs

[johnnyvann840]

Boy oh boy are we heading down an uplifting path as half the country says a 17-year old kid was well within his rights to cross state-lines with a borrowed assault rifle and patrol the streets and then murder 2 adults in the act of self-defense. The real point is that his mom shouldn't have driven him up there with a rifle. I don't care if Obama or Lauri Markannen are walking down the street with an assault rifle: I am getting the **** out and warning everybody that a very dangerous armed individual is walking in public. I have some gun enthusiast friends who hunt- that's it. They take their rifles to the forest with a buddy or two, and they go shoot a deer. Fine -- they love the fancy gun tech, and the animal meat and the outdoors -- I don't get it, but I get it. But carrying a rifle on concrete?

The mob chasing him was also very stupid, but I consider open-carry of assault rifles to be a completely psychotic policy. I think militias should be banned from protests unless the city passes a temporary measure to instate them in times of crisis. If so, the city and police department will be entirely responsible for their actions.

I am unfortunately predicting there will be a few more protest deaths in the coming months. Maybe by this logic, all the protesters should also bring guns for their own defense. They promise to only use them in self-defense. When the inevitable blood bath happens, the only question will be whether the NRA has to also support BLM protestors who decided to legally arm themselves.

Every most idiotic thing you can possible conceive in your mind shall continue happening in America for the coming future. The Empire is burning with stupidity, and path is strewn with garbage.

Let's not conflate saying he will not and should not be convicted of murder with saying he was "well within his rights to have the rifle and cross state lines with it". Two entirely different things. However, that is his crime- possessing the firearm and perhaps crossing state lines with it (it should be noted that although he crossed from IL into WI, he actually traveled less to be there than the guys who were shot by him, although that is irrelevant, IMO). My opinion is that he really didn't "murder" anybody. He was attacked by criminals while he was apparently trying to help protect somebody's business (attacked more than once). Also, as pointed out in the video, at least one of his attackers had a gun and another was trying to grab the kid's gun and he was also attacked with a skateboard. He was actually trying to run away from the criminal attackers in all three instances.

Now, whether or not he should have been there in the first place is an entirely different argument. I also agree with the lawyer in that video saying that he wishes that the kid had just stayed home (also that all of the parties involved should have just stayed home). I am all for peaceful protesting but I am vehemently against these violent criminals who think it's OK to just destroy other people's property and businesses. That kid actually had good intentions wanting to help protect that business from criminal destruction. However, it is not his job and he should have indeed just stayed home. Like dice said, much of this is on the Kenosha PD. The question is did he commit murder or was he defending himself from bodily harm or a deadly threat. I think the lawyer in the video is right when he says the kid will plead this down to illegal possession of a firearm by a minor and will not be convicted of murder because it was self defense (or if he actually had the certificate required to possess the gun, he may not get convicted of any crime).

[League Circles]

I think what you’ve done here is admirable. I mean that genuinely. But it’s now widely believed that body cams have limited value when it comes to reducing use of force.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/20/558832090/body-cam-study-shows-no-effect-on-police-use-of-force-or-citizen-complaints

Which makes sense when you consider that a number of these high profile cases have involved cops who either knew they had on body cameras or that they were being filmed by bystanders.

Thanks, I think it's important.

I don't think that article says what you suggest at all. first of all it only discusses whether or not complaints and use-of-force decreased which they did not at a statistically significant level. but that's the wrong metric. The right metric is whether or not justified complaints and unjustified use of force went down. there are a massive number of unjustified complaints and justified use of force in police work.

From the article:

"Perhaps, he says, that is because his officers "were doing the right thing in the first place."

To me this is somewhat plausible in DC of all places.

Then the article goes into a discussion about how it can help police legitimacy. Such as in the case where a suspect was brandishing a knife and many people suggested he wasn't but the video proved that he was.

How would you tally cases of “justified” use of force?

DC, for example, routes a lot of misconduct complaints to a confidential mediation process.

Who decides what’s justified for the purposes of a study?

It would be extremely difficult. Every single complaint and use of force would have to be
evaluated on an individual basis and obviously some sort of criteria would have to be established.

But the study and article beg the question of whether or not there were any abuses of power among the officers with the body cams (and mics, not sure I caught if they were mic'd up or not which is just as important) AT ALL. THEN the question becomes were those officers successfully punished and or prosecuted for their abuses that we have evidence of. If they're either were no egregious abuses of power or excessive force or such cases were successfully punished and or prosecuted due to the clear evidence then body cams and mics would seem to have clear empirical benefit and not just the obvious logical benefit that they have to begin with.

And then of course there is the idea that it's plausible that DC was already among the more well-behaved police departments whereas some more problematic departments whether they be in Chicago or Kenosha or some hick town in the middle of nowhere or whatever would be that much more improved by these. I just can't fathom why anyone wouldn't support this especially when we all already have cameras in our pockets all the time including police officers. There's no inherent reason it should be expensive, and even if it was even someone like me who is quite severely fiscally conservative and basically wants spending for everything in the government to be reduced I would actually favor this ahead of almost any single government expenditure I can imagine.

[HomoSapien]

Boy oh boy are we heading down an uplifting path as half the country says a 17-year old kid was well within his rights to cross state-lines with a borrowed assault rifle and patrol the streets and then murder 2 adults in the act of self-defense. The real point is that his mom shouldn't have driven him up there with a rifle. I don't care if Obama or Lauri Markannen are walking down the street with an assault rifle: I am getting the **** out and warning everybody that a very dangerous armed individual is walking in public. I have some gun enthusiast friends who hunt- that's it. They take their rifles to the forest with a buddy or two, and they go shoot a deer. Fine -- they love the fancy gun tech, and the animal meat and the outdoors -- I don't get it, but I get it. But carrying a rifle on concrete?

The mob chasing him was also very stupid, but I consider open-carry of assault rifles to be a completely psychotic policy. I think militias should be banned from protests unless the city passes a temporary measure to instate them in times of crisis. If so, the city and police department will be entirely responsible for their actions.

I am unfortunately predicting there will be a few more protest deaths in the coming months. Maybe by this logic, all the protesters should also bring guns for their own defense. They promise to only use them in self-defense. When the inevitable blood bath happens, the only question will be whether the NRA has to also support BLM protestors who decided to legally arm themselves.

Every most idiotic thing you can possible conceive in your mind shall continue happening in America for the coming future. The Empire is burning with stupidity, and path is strewn with garbage.

Let's not conflate saying he will not and should not be convicted of murder with saying he was "well within his rights to have the rifle and cross state lines with it". Two entirely different things. However, that is his crime- possessing the firearm and perhaps crossing state lines with it (it should be noted that although he crossed from IL into WI, he actually traveled less to be there than the guys who were shot by him, although that is irrelevant, IMO). My opinion is that he really didn't "murder" anybody. He was attacked by criminals while he was apparently trying to help protect somebody's business (attacked more than once). Also, as pointed out in the video, at least one of his attackers had a gun and another was trying to grab the kid's gun and he was also attacked with a skateboard. He was actually trying to run away from the criminal attackers in all three instances.

Now, whether or not he should have been there in the first place is an entirely different argument. I also agree with the lawyer in that video saying that he wishes that the kid had just stayed home (also that all of the parties involved should have just stayed home). I am all for peaceful protesting but I am vehemently against these violent criminals who think it's OK to just destroy other people's property and businesses. That kid actually had good intentions wanting to help protect that business from criminal destruction. However, it is not his job and he should have indeed just stayed home. Like dice said, much of this is on the Kenosha PD. The question is did he commit murder or was he defending himself from bodily harm or a deadly threat. I think the lawyer in the video is right when he says the kid will plead this down to illegal possession of a firearm by a minor and will not be convicted of murder because it was self defense (or if he actually had the certificate required to possess the gun, he may not get convicted of any crime).

Boy, I'm not sure if I can agree with this. There's something so strange to me about driving to a different state, with a gun, to protect a business you have no association with. If you're taking those steps, it seems like you're actively looking for trouble. For what it's worth, there is a video trending on Twitter right now of Rittenhouse punching a girl (I'm not sure if it's been verified as true, but I believe he's wearing USA shoes that he's been seen wearing in other photos). Also, it's worth noting that this confrontation allegedly began because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people in cars, demanding they get out. There's also an article on Vice about how his classmates feared that he'd become a school shooter. I'm not getting a good kid vibe that some are trying to sell right now.

Regardless, I think one of the things that strikes me most is that this is a kid (and he really looks like one) walking around with a gun. It just goes to show you how people are really becoming radicalized. This isn't normal, but we're probably going to start seeing more of this sort of self-policing.

[johnnyvann840]

Boy oh boy are we heading down an uplifting path as half the country says a 17-year old kid was well within his rights to cross state-lines with a borrowed assault rifle and patrol the streets and then murder 2 adults in the act of self-defense. The real point is that his mom shouldn't have driven him up there with a rifle. I don't care if Obama or Lauri Markannen are walking down the street with an assault rifle: I am getting the **** out and warning everybody that a very dangerous armed individual is walking in public. I have some gun enthusiast friends who hunt- that's it. They take their rifles to the forest with a buddy or two, and they go shoot a deer. Fine -- they love the fancy gun tech, and the animal meat and the outdoors -- I don't get it, but I get it. But carrying a rifle on concrete?

The mob chasing him was also very stupid, but I consider open-carry of assault rifles to be a completely psychotic policy. I think militias should be banned from protests unless the city passes a temporary measure to instate them in times of crisis. If so, the city and police department will be entirely responsible for their actions.

I am unfortunately predicting there will be a few more protest deaths in the coming months. Maybe by this logic, all the protesters should also bring guns for their own defense. They promise to only use them in self-defense. When the inevitable blood bath happens, the only question will be whether the NRA has to also support BLM protestors who decided to legally arm themselves.

Every most idiotic thing you can possible conceive in your mind shall continue happening in America for the coming future. The Empire is burning with stupidity, and path is strewn with garbage.

Let's not conflate saying he will not and should not be convicted of murder with saying he was "well within his rights to have the rifle and cross state lines with it". Two entirely different things. However, that is his crime- possessing the firearm and perhaps crossing state lines with it (it should be noted that although he crossed from IL into WI, he actually traveled less to be there than the guys who were shot by him, although that is irrelevant, IMO). My opinion is that he really didn't "murder" anybody. He was attacked by criminals while he was apparently trying to help protect somebody's business (attacked more than once). Also, as pointed out in the video, at least one of his attackers had a gun and another was trying to grab the kid's gun and he was also attacked with a skateboard. He was actually trying to run away from the criminal attackers in all three instances.

Now, whether or not he should have been there in the first place is an entirely different argument. I also agree with the lawyer in that video saying that he wishes that the kid had just stayed home (also that all of the parties involved should have just stayed home). I am all for peaceful protesting but I am vehemently against these violent criminals who think it's OK to just destroy other people's property and businesses. That kid actually had good intentions wanting to help protect that business from criminal destruction. However, it is not his job and he should have indeed just stayed home. Like dice said, much of this is on the Kenosha PD. The question is did he commit murder or was he defending himself from bodily harm or a deadly threat. I think the lawyer in the video is right when he says the kid will plead this down to illegal possession of a firearm by a minor and will not be convicted of murder because it was self defense (or if he actually had the certificate required to possess the gun, he may not get convicted of any crime).

Boy, I'm not sure if I can agree with this. There's something so strange to me about driving to a different state, with a gun, to protect a business you have no association with. If you're taking those steps, it seems like you're actively looking for trouble. For what it's worth, there is a video trending on Twitter right now of Rittenhouse punching a girl (I'm not sure if it's been verified as true, but I believe he's wearing USA shoes that he's been seen wearing in other photos). Also, it's worth noting that this confrontation allegedly began because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people in cars, demanding they get out. There's also an article on Vice about how his classmates feared that he'd become a school shooter. I'm not getting a good kid vibe that some are trying to sell right now.

Look, I'm not saying he's a good kid. I'm not saying that he should have even been there. He shouldn't have. I'm just saying that from what is available on video right now from a legal standpoint, it sure looks like self defense (not just to me but to several lawyers who have broken it down). Regarding the "traveling to a different state".. Antioch is less than a 30 minute drive to Kenosha. In fact, Rittenhouse traveled less distance to get there than anybody who attacked him and got shot. Also, if we are going after character, his victims (if we can even call them that) were not exactly model citizens either. One was a convicted pedophile, (Joseph Rosenbaum) good riddance to him... and the others had significant criminal records of violence and domestic abuse also. Not saying that Rittenhouse had any way of knowing this or it even mattered at the time. But, it's not like any of these people involved were exactly "good kids".

[HomoSapien]

Let's not conflate saying he will not and should not be convicted of murder with saying he was "well within his rights to have the rifle and cross state lines with it". Two entirely different things. However, that is his crime- possessing the firearm and perhaps crossing state lines with it (it should be noted that although he crossed from IL into WI, he actually traveled less to be there than the guys who were shot by him, although that is irrelevant, IMO). My opinion is that he really didn't "murder" anybody. He was attacked by criminals while he was apparently trying to help protect somebody's business (attacked more than once). Also, as pointed out in the video, at least one of his attackers had a gun and another was trying to grab the kid's gun and he was also attacked with a skateboard. He was actually trying to run away from the criminal attackers in all three instances.

Now, whether or not he should have been there in the first place is an entirely different argument. I also agree with the lawyer in that video saying that he wishes that the kid had just stayed home (also that all of the parties involved should have just stayed home). I am all for peaceful protesting but I am vehemently against these violent criminals who think it's OK to just destroy other people's property and businesses. That kid actually had good intentions wanting to help protect that business from criminal destruction. However, it is not his job and he should have indeed just stayed home. Like dice said, much of this is on the Kenosha PD. The question is did he commit murder or was he defending himself from bodily harm or a deadly threat. I think the lawyer in the video is right when he says the kid will plead this down to illegal possession of a firearm by a minor and will not be convicted of murder because it was self defense (or if he actually had the certificate required to possess the gun, he may not get convicted of any crime).

Boy, I'm not sure if I can agree with this. There's something so strange to me about driving to a different state, with a gun, to protect a business you have no association with. If you're taking those steps, it seems like you're actively looking for trouble. For what it's worth, there is a video trending on Twitter right now of Rittenhouse punching a girl (I'm not sure if it's been verified as true, but I believe he's wearing USA shoes that he's been seen wearing in other photos). Also, it's worth noting that this confrontation allegedly began because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people in cars, demanding they get out. There's also an article on Vice about how his classmates feared that he'd become a school shooter. I'm not getting a good kid vibe that some are trying to sell right now.

Look, I'm not saying he's a good kid. I'm not saying that he should have even been there. He shouldn't have. I'm just saying that from what is available on video right now from a legal standpoint, it sure looks like self defense (not just to me but to several lawyers who have broken it down). Regarding the "traveling to a different state".. Antioch is less than a 30 minute drive to Kenosha. In fact, Rittenhouse traveled less distance to get there than anybody who attacked him and got shot. Also, if we are going after character, his victims (if we can even call them that) were not exactly model citizens either. One was a convicted pedophile, (Joseph Rosenbaum) good riddance to him... and the others had significant criminal records of violence and domestic abuse also. Not saying that Rittenhouse had any way of knowing this or it even mattered at the time. But, it's not like any of these people involved were exactly "good kids".

I get your points, but I believe this "self-defense" argument is about to fall apart fairly quickly. The first person he killed, he shot in the back as he was fleeing away. That is going to really complicate his self-defense argument, IMO.

[MrSparkle]

Boy oh boy are we heading down an uplifting path as half the country says a 17-year old kid was well within his rights to cross state-lines with a borrowed assault rifle and patrol the streets and then murder 2 adults in the act of self-defense. The real point is that his mom shouldn't have driven him up there with a rifle. I don't care if Obama or Lauri Markannen are walking down the street with an assault rifle: I am getting the **** out and warning everybody that a very dangerous armed individual is walking in public. I have some gun enthusiast friends who hunt- that's it. They take their rifles to the forest with a buddy or two, and they go shoot a deer. Fine -- they love the fancy gun tech, and the animal meat and the outdoors -- I don't get it, but I get it. But carrying a rifle on concrete?

The mob chasing him was also very stupid, but I consider open-carry of assault rifles to be a completely psychotic policy. I think militias should be banned from protests unless the city passes a temporary measure to instate them in times of crisis. If so, the city and police department will be entirely responsible for their actions.

I am unfortunately predicting there will be a few more protest deaths in the coming months. Maybe by this logic, all the protesters should also bring guns for their own defense. They promise to only use them in self-defense. When the inevitable blood bath happens, the only question will be whether the NRA has to also support BLM protestors who decided to legally arm themselves.

Every most idiotic thing you can possible conceive in your mind shall continue happening in America for the coming future. The Empire is burning with stupidity, and path is strewn with garbage.

Let's not conflate saying he will not and should not be convicted of murder with saying he was "well within his rights to have the rifle and cross state lines with it". Two entirely different things. However, that is his crime- possessing the firearm and perhaps crossing state lines with it (it should be noted that although he crossed from IL into WI, he actually traveled less to be there than the guys who were shot by him, although that is irrelevant, IMO). My opinion is that he really didn't "murder" anybody. He was attacked by criminals while he was apparently trying to help protect somebody's business (attacked more than once). Also, as pointed out in the video, at least one of his attackers had a gun and another was trying to grab the kid's gun and he was also attacked with a skateboard. He was actually trying to run away from the criminal attackers in all three instances.

Now, whether or not he should have been there in the first place is an entirely different argument. I also agree with the lawyer in that video saying that he wishes that the kid had just stayed home (also that all of the parties involved should have just stayed home). I am all for peaceful protesting but I am vehemently against these violent criminals who think it's OK to just destroy other people's property and businesses. That kid actually had good intentions wanting to help protect that business from criminal destruction. However, it is not his job and he should have indeed just stayed home. Like dice said, much of this is on the Kenosha PD. The question is did he commit murder or was he defending himself from bodily harm or a deadly threat. I think the lawyer in the video is right when he says the kid will plead this down to illegal possession of a firearm by a minor and will not be convicted of murder because it was self defense (or if he actually had the certificate required to possess the gun, he may not get convicted of any crime).

Me too, but that's for the city police to handle. Period.

And I strongly disagree about good intentions. A high school kid bringing an assault rifle to a very crazy and high-emotion protest with a lot of people? Don't bring the assault rifle. It's like a drunk 16-year old getting into a car and intending to get home safely, and then he crashes into a car and kill 2 people. And no one's sure if he actually caused the accident, but he sure did register a high blood alcohol count.

Good intentions would've been sticking to the first aid kit and passing out water. You don't ever bring a gun to anything if you have good intentions.

This kid's life is already pretty much ruined, in the long-term. Even if right-wingers and Christians pay for his all-star defense team and he gets off the murder charges, the fact is the kid killed 2 people point-blank, and it absolutely would have not happened if he was unarmed. He's a public enemy. If he doesn't feel depressed or distraught about the mess that he got himself into, then he needs psychiatric evaluation. If he does feel depressed, he needs psychiatric help.

This is really just about the denial of the danger of assault weapons. For some reason this country has found it acceptable to think they are deterrents in hot situations, when really they just escalate mild situations into blood baths. There is too much mental instability and idiocy in this country to allow assault rifles in public space - the very idea of demanding to exercise freedom by having guns in public is mentally unstable at its core. That's my hard take. This kid is an idiot with an idiotic mother. IMO he deserves jail-time. The purpose of law is to set a precedent. If he gets off scot-free, then be prepared to see a whole lot of armed-peaceful protestors exercising their right to self-defense.

[cjbulls]

You literally just provided the substance of your own answer for me, just now.

Giannis alone could get certain members of the legislature on the phone anytime he wants. Their meeting had absolutely nothing to do with the Bucks postponing a game and everything to do with Kenosha spiraling out of control while they were on vacation.

The meeting had everything to do with the total amount of pressure. The NBA boycotting was part of that pressure. That's how things work. It isn't anyone person or thing that creates that pressure. The primary purpose of the boycott, IMO, was to continue to ramp up pressure on this specific issue.

The NBA boycott almost certainly caused the MLB walkoff which was very unexpected.

The extra things they agreed to with the NBA were just side things IMO, and I agree they weren't huge, but they weren't nothing either. I'm not sure what reasonable expectations you would have for boycotting a game, apparently much larger than my expectations if you think nothing came from it.

Most times I think of actions like this, literally nothing comes from it. Like absolutely nothing. There was a massive amount of political pressure added, they caused another major sport to boycott games, they got minor concessions from owners, and they were part of the overall movement that caused enough pressure to have a special session of the senate.

What do you think a possible outcome would have been if they made "a real stand"? What other things do you think they could have gotten or would have gotten?

You are correct about leading the way for the other leagues. They created a wave that allowed the other sports to boycott too. But it became a bit of a "follow or be branded complicit in police brutality" thing. I saw the media go pretty hard after the NHL when they waited a day to protest.

Your argument about the legislature on the other hand holds little water. Legislature could not care less what the Bucks want outside of celebrity engagement raising their profile. The idea they weren't coming back and the Bucks in any way tipped the scales of returning is implausible. They became the center of attention for the US, before the Bucks boycotted, and needed to show the constituents they were responding.

I don't know what more could have come from it. I have some doubts as well there. But then don't take the day off. This wasn't some random act they couldn't see coming. There have been incidents non-stop this summer and everyone has discussed these problems. George Floyd blew up just as the NBA was returning and the players debated this very issue, with most mocking Kyrie for suggesting a boycott. So it's not like there wasn't time to have figured this out ahead of time.

If all the stars took the rest of the season off and went back to their home cities, or key cities like Louisville, to lead protests that would have been fascinating. Giannis could have been at that legislature, meeting with police, standing front and center at the protest, and attempting to become a leader for a movement that seems largely leaderless. And the NBA product still would have been interesting, albeit in a different way (this postseason will get a big asterisk already). Again, not sure it would have worked, but it's better than what they did, postpone the games for two days and now that effort is completely forgotten outside of nba junkies on a message board.

[dice]

Boy oh boy are we heading down an uplifting path as half the country says a 17-year old kid was well within his rights to cross state-lines with a borrowed assault rifle and patrol the streets and then murder 2 adults in the act of self-defense. The real point is that his mom shouldn't have driven him up there with a rifle. I don't care if Obama or Lauri Markannen are walking down the street with an assault rifle: I am getting the **** out and warning everybody that a very dangerous armed individual is walking in public. I have some gun enthusiast friends who hunt- that's it. They take their rifles to the forest with a buddy or two, and they go shoot a deer. Fine -- they love the fancy gun tech, and the animal meat and the outdoors -- I don't get it, but I get it. But carrying a rifle on concrete?

The mob chasing him was also very stupid, but I consider open-carry of assault rifles to be a completely psychotic policy. I think militias should be banned from protests unless the city passes a temporary measure to instate them in times of crisis. If so, the city and police department will be entirely responsible for their actions.

I am unfortunately predicting there will be a few more protest deaths in the coming months. Maybe by this logic, all the protesters should also bring guns for their own defense. They promise to only use them in self-defense. When the inevitable blood bath happens, the only question will be whether the NRA has to also support BLM protestors who decided to legally arm themselves.

Every most idiotic thing you can possible conceive in your mind shall continue happening in America for the coming future. The Empire is burning with stupidity, and path is strewn with garbage.

Let's not conflate saying he will not and should not be convicted of murder with saying he was "well within his rights to have the rifle and cross state lines with it". Two entirely different things. However, that is his crime- possessing the firearm and perhaps crossing state lines with it (it should be noted that although he crossed from IL into WI, he actually traveled less to be there than the guys who were shot by him, although that is irrelevant, IMO). My opinion is that he really didn't "murder" anybody. He was attacked by criminals while he was apparently trying to help protect somebody's business (attacked more than once). Also, as pointed out in the video, at least one of his attackers had a gun and another was trying to grab the kid's gun and he was also attacked with a skateboard. He was actually trying to run away from the criminal attackers in all three instances.

Now, whether or not he should have been there in the first place is an entirely different argument. I also agree with the lawyer in that video saying that he wishes that the kid had just stayed home (also that all of the parties involved should have just stayed home). I am all for peaceful protesting but I am vehemently against these violent criminals who think it's OK to just destroy other people's property and businesses. That kid actually had good intentions wanting to help protect that business from criminal destruction. However, it is not his job and he should have indeed just stayed home. Like dice said, much of this is on the Kenosha PD. The question is did he commit murder or was he defending himself from bodily harm or a deadly threat. I think the lawyer in the video is right when he says the kid will plead this down to illegal possession of a firearm by a minor and will not be convicted of murder because it was self defense (or if he actually had the certificate required to possess the gun, he may not get convicted of any crime).

Me too, but that's for the city police to handle. Period.

And I strongly disagree about good intentions. A high school kid bringing an assault rifle to a very crazy and high-emotion protest with a lot of people? Don't bring the assault rifle. It's like a drunk 16-year old getting into a car and intending to get home safely, and then he crashes into a car and kill 2 people. And no one's sure if he actually caused the accident, but he sure did register a high blood alcohol count.

Good intentions would've been sticking to the first aid kit and passing out water. You don't ever bring a gun to anything if you have good intentions.

This kid's life is already pretty much ruined, in the long-term. Even if right-wingers and Christians pay for his all-star defense team and he gets off the murder charges, the fact is the kid killed 2 people point-blank, and it absolutely would have not happened if he was unarmed. He's a public enemy. If he doesn't feel depressed or distraught about the mess that he got himself into, then he needs psychiatric evaluation. If he does feel depressed, he needs psychiatric help.

This is really just about the denial of the danger of assault weapons. For some reason this country has found it acceptable to think they are deterrents in hot situations, when really they just escalate mild situations into blood baths. There is too much mental instability and idiocy in this country to allow assault rifles in public space - the very idea of demanding to exercise freedom by having guns in public is mentally unstable at its core. That's my hard take. This kid is an idiot with an idiotic mother. IMO he deserves jail-time. The purpose of law is to set a precedent. If he gets off scot-free, then be prepared to see a whole lot of armed-peaceful protestors exercising their right to self-defense.

unless some new video emerges where he plainly instigated violence, i think he's getting off on the violent crime charges. the problem was him being there in the first place. as you say, nothing good was gonna come of it. ironically, if he was genuinely interested in protecting places of business, easily the best thing he could have done was show up in a black lives matter shirt and tried to talk people down. but then he wouldn't have been able to puff out his chest and role play doofus rambo

[MrFortune3]

I think the boycott will lead to significant change but it will come in slow stages. Nothing is going to get fixed overnight but by utilizing this platform the owners know the players were serious and want to invoke change. The owners have far more reach with government and officials than the players do. Being a cohesive unit in this scenario will be worth far more than the players ending the season and going on the lead protests.

The flow of money and influence that the initiatives should lead to is more important than a group of the players going at it alone.
You now have millionaires and billionaires all working towards a similar goal. If you keep the pressure on and work towards positive change then the out eventual outcome should render the boycott a blip on the radar but an important step in the right direction.

[Ccwatercraft]

I don't know. Not doing something is not doing anything. They want to boycott games then fine. But use that time to do something positive. Dig deeper into the issues and forget about politics. How about take the time and meet with the police in your state. Meet them, get to know them. Have discussions, have suggestions. Go on some ride alongs, lets gain some perspective. Actually work towards a resolution. Sending messages through the media or through boycotting is only causing negative reactions and we are seeing that way too often now. Do something truly meaningful with the time. Set a positive example out there.

I don't think doing those types of activities does anything to solve the problem at hand. How does getting to know the police and doing ridealongs stop systemic abuse of black people by police officers? It doesn't.

Perhaps it would provide valuable insight.

Watch on YouTube

[musiqsoulchild]

I don't know. Not doing something is not doing anything. They want to boycott games then fine. But use that time to do something positive. Dig deeper into the issues and forget about politics. How about take the time and meet with the police in your state. Meet them, get to know them. Have discussions, have suggestions. Go on some ride alongs, lets gain some perspective. Actually work towards a resolution. Sending messages through the media or through boycotting is only causing negative reactions and we are seeing that way too often now. Do something truly meaningful with the time. Set a positive example out there.

I don't think doing those types of activities does anything to solve the problem at hand. How does getting to know the police and doing ridealongs stop systemic abuse of black people by police officers? It doesn't.

Perhaps it would provide valuable insight.

Watch on YouTube

I would have condoned a shoot to kill in all 3 situations.

Regardless of the race of the officer or the criminal.

Those situations arent very similar to what occurred in Floyd or Blake's case.

Even with Rayshard in ATL.

Or Laquan in Chicago or Michael Brown in St. Louis.

Heres what I would do if it was a dangerous area where as a cop I am going in for a call:

1) The precinct I work for MUST have protocols of escalation because it's a more dangerous neighborhood that we police in

2) The goal should always be to apprehend a criminal. Not to kill him/her. We have all heard of "Suicide by Cop". A few criminals prefer that go going away for a long time. A protocol needs to exist for that. For protecting the criminal and the Cops.

3) A team always responds...with backup in place.

4) The community leadership is actively involved in such situations to de-escalate.

5) Cops are trained in de-escalation


The question is in the 2 scenarios why does the criminal get belligerent with a Cop? When they wont with a Civilian?

Are they in the midst of a criminal act? Is it better to let them complete the criminal.act and then pick them up when things are naturally unexpected and deescalated.

[johnnyvann840]

I don't think doing those types of activities does anything to solve the problem at hand. How does getting to know the police and doing ridealongs stop systemic abuse of black people by police officers? It doesn't.

Perhaps it would provide valuable insight.

Watch on YouTube

I would have condoned a shoot to kill in all 3 situations.

Regardless of the race of the officer or the criminal.

Those situations arent very similar to what occurred in Floyd or Blake's case.

Even with Rayshard in ATL.

Or Laquan in Chicago or Michael Brown in St. Louis.

Heres what I would do if it was a dangerous area where as a cop I am going in for a call:

1) The precinct I work for MUST have protocols of escalation because it's a more dangerous neighborhood that we police in

2) The goal should always be to apprehend a criminal. Not to kill him/her. We have all heard of "Suicide by Cop". A few criminals prefer that go going away for a long time. A protocol needs to exist for that. For protecting the criminal and the Cops.

3) A team always responds...with backup in place.

4) The community leadership is actively involved in such situations to de-escalate.

5) Cops are trained in de-escalation


The question is in the 2 scenarios why does the criminal get belligerent with a Cop? When they wont with a Civilian?

Are they in the midst of a criminal act? Is it better to let them complete the criminal.act and then pick them up when things are naturally unexpected and deescalated.

Insight.

Not saying any of this justifies what happened, but it certainly changes the way I look at the entire scenario. If the cops were aware of all of this and Blake really was resisting arrest, fighting with the cops prior to the video we all saw a million times. If he really just essentially broke into a woman's home, finger raped this woman while she was sleeping and had a history of domestic abuse with her. Also, he had just stole her vehicle as well, according to her. Btw, this is the same woman who he had just sexually assaulted in July which is the reason he had a warrant for his arrest in the first place. She called 911 after he sexually assaulted her and she realized her car was gone and her keys had been taken from her purse by Blake.

I just hate that the media only reports half the story, which winds up inciting riots and violence. Perhaps if people got the whole story from the media, they would react differently or at least wait until all the facts are known.

The responding officers were aware he had an open warrant for felony sexual assault, according to dispatch records and the Kenosha Professional Police Association, which released a statement on the incident on Friday.

That police union statement also claimed that Blake was armed with a knife at the time of the shooting — and had put one cop in a headlock and shrugged off two Taser attempts while resisting arrest.

Blake, who was paralyzed in the shooting, had been handcuffed to his hospital bed due to the warrant, which was vacated Friday, according to a statement released by his lawyer, Benjamin Crump. His restraints were removed, but he is still facing the criminal charges, Crump said.

Blake is accused in the criminal complaint, which was obtained by The Post, of breaking into the home of a woman he knew and sexually assaulting her.

The victim, who is only identified by her initials in the paperwork, told police she was asleep in bed with one of her children when Blake came into the room around 6 a.m. and allegedly said “I want my sh-t,” the record states.

She told cops Blake then used his finger to sexually assault her, sniffed it and said, “Smells like you’ve been with other men,” the criminal complaint alleges.

The officer who took her statement said she “had a very difficult time telling him this and cried as she told how the defendant assaulted her.”

The alleged victim said Blake “penetrating her digitally caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent” and she was “very humiliated and upset by the sexual assault,” the record states.

She told police she “was upset but collected herself” and then allegedly ran out the front door after Blake, the complaint says. She then realized her car was missing, checked her purse and saw the keys were missing and then “immediately called 911,” the complaint alleges.

The alleged victim told cops she has known him for eight years and claims that he physically assaults her “around twice a year when he drinks heavily.”

Police filed charges against him for felony sexual assault, trespassing and domestic abuse in July when a warrant was issued for his arrest.

On Sunday, within three minutes of responding to the 911 call, Blake was shot 7 times in the back as he attempted to get into his car.

[dougthonus]

I don't know. Not doing something is not doing anything. They want to boycott games then fine. But use that time to do something positive. Dig deeper into the issues and forget about politics. How about take the time and meet with the police in your state. Meet them, get to know them. Have discussions, have suggestions. Go on some ride alongs, lets gain some perspective. Actually work towards a resolution. Sending messages through the media or through boycotting is only causing negative reactions and we are seeing that way too often now. Do something truly meaningful with the time. Set a positive example out there.

I don't think doing those types of activities does anything to solve the problem at hand. How does getting to know the police and doing ridealongs stop systemic abuse of black people by police officers? It doesn't.

Perhaps it would provide valuable insight.

Watch on YouTube

This type of solution starts with the premise that the police are doing a great job and are simply misunderstood.

It doesn't do anything whatsoever to address a police officer whom kneels on someone's neck and chokes them to death for 8 minutes and then department cherry picks phrases in the autopsy report to make it appear that being choked was not a cause of death.

It doesn't help the situation where there is a no knock raid on an innocent person's house, and a nurse is shot to death literally for no reason whatsoever.

It also doesn't seem to address the situation that black people have been targeted by police for the entire history of this country.

I do believe that being a cop that is in these types of situations is a ridiculously difficult job, and I have sympathy for a cop in the situation with Blake if he has a knife and has to make this kind of quick decision and had legitimate fear for his life (or other situations where a cop has to decide whether his life is in jeopardy in a split second and someone is non compliant).

That said, again, this only solves the situation of people not understanding how difficult a police officer's job is, it doesn't address the systemic abuse of power or targeting.

[dougthonus]

Boy, I'm not sure if I can agree with this. There's something so strange to me about driving to a different state, with a gun, to protect a business you have no association with. If you're taking those steps, it seems like you're actively looking for trouble. For what it's worth, there is a video trending on Twitter right now of Rittenhouse punching a girl (I'm not sure if it's been verified as true, but I believe he's wearing USA shoes that he's been seen wearing in other photos). Also, it's worth noting that this confrontation allegedly began because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people in cars, demanding they get out. There's also an article on Vice about how his classmates feared that he'd become a school shooter. I'm not getting a good kid vibe that some are trying to sell right now.

Regardless, I think one of the things that strikes me most is that this is a kid (and he really looks like one) walking around with a gun. It just goes to show you how people are really becoming radicalized. This isn't normal, but we're probably going to start seeing more of this sort of self-policing.

Your description of Rittenhouse seems filled with the problems and character assassination that is commonly used against black people when they are victimized but turn out to have a criminal record in the past. I completely agree that this kid may have wanted to find trouble and purposefully put himself in a situation where he was going to find it, but it's irrelevant to the situation once it unfolds. Much like its totally irrelevant that Floyd had a previous criminal record and meth in his system, it doesn't make it okay to choke him to death by kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes. The fact that this kid had a gun and shouldn't have been there isn't relevant to the fact that he shot people whom were chasing him as he tried to get away and fired only at the point where his life was in danger and controlled his fire to only be at people whom were endangering his life.

Allowing armed militias and having people travel to be part of them seems to absolutely be a problem, but those people are also there because there are violent, criminal rioters destroying property. Which of those two things is the bigger problem? To me, it would be the people whom are coming there with a mission and purpose of destroying things.

You literally had Ariel Atkins, one of the BLM organizers in Chicago, promoting looting and rioting, calling it reparations and saying it would not stop until the Chicago police department was disbanded. I'm not sure if this is common or just someone within BLM that was even more extreme than their typical extreme people, but it's completely outrageous and leaves no room for two sides to meet together or find any reasonable common ground. She doubled down on her comments afterwards and reaffirmed them and to my knowledge BLM has never backed away from these comments or desire for political violence.

Under that backdrop where protest organizers and leaders in this general area are encouraging violent crime then, I'm not sure what the outcome can be expected except escalating violence and greater schism. There has been rampant destruction of property and violence, and maybe someone feels that's all necessary, and who knows, maybe it is necessary to wake people up, but it's also going to lead to more and more situations like this. People are going to fight back to protect what is theirs. People are going to get angry about people they know who have now been wronged. People there to "protect" are going to be looking for excuses to start conflict due to their own grievances.

It's just going to get even uglier if people are going out there in a rage (be it protesters outraged by the latest incident, or militias outraged by the latest looting).

[musiqsoulchild]

Boy, I'm not sure if I can agree with this. There's something so strange to me about driving to a different state, with a gun, to protect a business you have no association with. If you're taking those steps, it seems like you're actively looking for trouble. For what it's worth, there is a video trending on Twitter right now of Rittenhouse punching a girl (I'm not sure if it's been verified as true, but I believe he's wearing USA shoes that he's been seen wearing in other photos). Also, it's worth noting that this confrontation allegedly began because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people in cars, demanding they get out. There's also an article on Vice about how his classmates feared that he'd become a school shooter. I'm not getting a good kid vibe that some are trying to sell right now.

Regardless, I think one of the things that strikes me most is that this is a kid (and he really looks like one) walking around with a gun. It just goes to show you how people are really becoming radicalized. This isn't normal, but we're probably going to start seeing more of this sort of self-policing.

Your description of Rittenhouse seems filled with the problems and character assassination that is commonly used against black people when they are victimized but turn out to have a criminal record in the past. I completely agree that this kid may have wanted to find trouble and purposefully put himself in a situation where he was going to find it, but it's irrelevant to the situation once it unfolds. Much like its totally irrelevant that Floyd had a previous criminal record and meth in his system, it doesn't make it okay to choke him to death by kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes. The fact that this kid had a gun and shouldn't have been there isn't relevant to the fact that he shot people whom were chasing him as he tried to get away and fired only at the point where his life was in danger and controlled his fire to only be at people whom were endangering his life.

Allowing armed militias and having people travel to be part of them seems to absolutely be a problem, but those people are also there because there are violent, criminal rioters destroying property. Which of those two things is the bigger problem? To me, it would be the people whom are coming there with a mission and purpose of destroying things.

You literally had Ariel Atkins, one of the BLM organizers in Chicago, promoting looting and rioting, calling it reparations and saying it would not stop until the Chicago police department was disbanded. I'm not sure if this is common or just someone within BLM that was even more extreme than their typical extreme people, but it's completely outrageous and leaves no room for two sides to meet together or find any reasonable common ground. She doubled down on her comments afterwards and reaffirmed them and to my knowledge BLM has never backed away from these comments or desire for political violence.

Under that backdrop where protest organizers and leaders in this general area are encouraging violent crime then, I'm not sure what the outcome can be expected except escalating violence and greater schism. There has been rampant destruction of property and violence, and maybe someone feels that's all necessary, and who knows, maybe it is necessary to wake people up, but it's also going to lead to more and more situations like this. People are going to fight back to protect what is theirs. People are going to get angry about people they know who have now been wronged. People there to "protect" are going to be looking for excuses to start conflict due to their own grievances.

It's just going to get even uglier if people are going out there in a rage (be it protesters outraged by the latest incident, or militias outraged by the latest looting).

I agree with you that the more extreme BLM gets the more they will lose moderate support.

The problem is that we dont know:

1) The Bugaloo Boys
2) Proud Boys
3) Some other instigator or agent provocateurs

Seperately from all that, I am at a point in my life where I dont think it is ok to tell someone to tone down their anger.

Heres a good example:

After Civil Rights in the 60's, MLK and several prominent black leaders pushed through legislation that allowed for highly qualified immigrants to come to the US and work here.

Many Indians ( I am Indian for those who dont know...Doug knows)...benefitted from this. I am talking GENERATIONALLY.

Guess who got pushed back in the line?

Black people.

What should have happened?

We should have had qualified immigrants come in as well as highly qualified STEM teachers from other countries in the 1960's.

And get disadvantaged American citizens ( not immigrants) a STEM and Programming foundation starting in the 60's.

That would have created a system of upward mobility in Black families into higher paying jobs in the 80's itself. And probably avoided the crack epidemic. And a bunch of other unholy sins this country has been perpetrating against each other.

It's only NOW that we are seeing talk of STEM and Programming for disadvantaged communities ( Black, Brown).

The way I see it, Black people have historically lent their support to movements that have not directly benefitted them and in some cases indirectly hurt them.

It's time for this imbalance to be addressed.

[musiqsoulchild]

Perhaps it would provide valuable insight.

Watch on YouTube

I would have condoned a shoot to kill in all 3 situations.

Regardless of the race of the officer or the criminal.

Those situations arent very similar to what occurred in Floyd or Blake's case.

Even with Rayshard in ATL.

Or Laquan in Chicago or Michael Brown in St. Louis.

Heres what I would do if it was a dangerous area where as a cop I am going in for a call:

1) The precinct I work for MUST have protocols of escalation because it's a more dangerous neighborhood that we police in

2) The goal should always be to apprehend a criminal. Not to kill him/her. We have all heard of "Suicide by Cop". A few criminals prefer that go going away for a long time. A protocol needs to exist for that. For protecting the criminal and the Cops.

3) A team always responds...with backup in place.

4) The community leadership is actively involved in such situations to de-escalate.

5) Cops are trained in de-escalation


The question is in the 2 scenarios why does the criminal get belligerent with a Cop? When they wont with a Civilian?

Are they in the midst of a criminal act? Is it better to let them complete the criminal.act and then pick them up when things are naturally unexpected and deescalated.

Insight.

Not saying any of this justifies what happened, but it certainly changes the way I look at the entire scenario. If the cops were aware of all of this and Blake really was resisting arrest, fighting with the cops prior to the video we all saw a million times. If he really just essentially broke into a woman's home, finger raped this woman while she was sleeping and had a history of domestic abuse with her. Also, he had just stole her vehicle as well, according to her. Btw, this is the same woman who he had just sexually assaulted in July which is the reason he had a warrant for his arrest in the first place. She called 911 after he sexually assaulted her and she realized her car was gone and her keys had been taken from her purse by Blake.

I just hate that the media only reports half the story, which winds up inciting riots and violence. Perhaps if people got the whole story from the media, they would react differently or at least wait until all the facts are known.

The responding officers were aware he had an open warrant for felony sexual assault, according to dispatch records and the Kenosha Professional Police Association, which released a statement on the incident on Friday.

That police union statement also claimed that Blake was armed with a knife at the time of the shooting — and had put one cop in a headlock and shrugged off two Taser attempts while resisting arrest.

Blake, who was paralyzed in the shooting, had been handcuffed to his hospital bed due to the warrant, which was vacated Friday, according to a statement released by his lawyer, Benjamin Crump. His restraints were removed, but he is still facing the criminal charges, Crump said.

Blake is accused in the criminal complaint, which was obtained by The Post, of breaking into the home of a woman he knew and sexually assaulting her.

The victim, who is only identified by her initials in the paperwork, told police she was asleep in bed with one of her children when Blake came into the room around 6 a.m. and allegedly said “I want my sh-t,” the record states.

She told cops Blake then used his finger to sexually assault her, sniffed it and said, “Smells like you’ve been with other men,” the criminal complaint alleges.

The officer who took her statement said she “had a very difficult time telling him this and cried as she told how the defendant assaulted her.”

The alleged victim said Blake “penetrating her digitally caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent” and she was “very humiliated and upset by the sexual assault,” the record states.

She told police she “was upset but collected herself” and then allegedly ran out the front door after Blake, the complaint says. She then realized her car was missing, checked her purse and saw the keys were missing and then “immediately called 911,” the complaint alleges.

The alleged victim told cops she has known him for eight years and claims that he physically assaults her “around twice a year when he drinks heavily.”

Police filed charges against him for felony sexual assault, trespassing and domestic abuse in July when a warrant was issued for his arrest.

On Sunday, within three minutes of responding to the 911 call, Blake was shot 7 times in the back as he attempted to get into his car.

Let's apply that insight now.

I arrive on the scene. I ascertain that those are HIS kids and are rightfully with the correct custodian.

And, I let him drive away.

I then collect all the information from the person who called in the cops. And then, assign a cop to protect her UNTIL we arrest Blake later that day when the kids are not in danger.

I mean, there's a million ways to go about it that is better than current police procedure.

[musiqsoulchild]

I'll add one thing here.

Cops are seen as heroes. Rightfully so.


The problem with that is the kinds of people that are attracted to be a cop are typically modeling hero worship.

Even if that is the case for 1 out of every 5 new hires..that's a problem.

A cop cant be in love with being a cop. They have to focus on their job as a profession.

It should feel boring, analytical and calm. If you're constantly under an adrenaline rush, then you are more likely to react stressfully under a stressful condition.

[dougthonus]

Seperately from all that, I am at a point in my life where I dont think it is ok to tell someone to tone down their anger.

Do you support such anger when it results in theft, destruction of property, and physical assault all against unrelated innocents? How about when looters attacked Ronald McDonald house (a charity that housed families of sick children)?

I get that people are angry for sure, but I do feel you need to ask people to moderate their anger to stop prior to committing criminal acts.

[musiqsoulchild]

And I do not think the Blake situation was racism.i think it was another bad situation that the Cops were put in with few to no tools given to them to come out with success.

[musiqsoulchild]

Seperately from all that, I am at a point in my life where I dont think it is ok to tell someone to tone down their anger.

Do you support such anger when it results in theft, destruction of property, and physical assault all against unrelated innocents? How about when looters attacked Ronald McDonald house (a charity that housed families of sick children)?

I get that people are angry for sure, but I do feel you need to ask people to moderate their anger to stop prior to committing criminal acts.

I do not support it.

But I will not remove my focus on what the REAL issue is and thus deflate my support for BLM.

In almost all wars and movements that have been fought ( even the most non-violent ones), a LOT of murder, looting and rape took place.

It's because even inside largely peaceful movements, you can't control everyone.

Just like how you cant control a Kyle. Were there other militia members present that night? Were they also firing...the answer is Yes in both cases. But only Kyle's bullets found victims.

That doesn't delegitimize the need to defend a community business from arson.