₦airaland Forum

Ibime:
Like I said, you are just another coøn. Werey coming out of disguise. You should have saved the grammar and told us you are a sympathiser and water carrier for White Supremacist groups. I could already see that in the way you were lionising Kyle to be some sort of rambo. You better stick to discussing manga cartoons that made you such a sick individual.

So which talking head did you pick up that one up from? You guys are almost interchangeable in the way you speak, I feel like I've had this argument hundreds of times already.

"He doesn't agree with me, therefore, racist." Race has nothing to do with this matter though. A hispanic male shot 3 white jews, killing 2 of them. Somehow you bend over backwards to make this about race. It's always abut race, there's never any nuance.
Yet you regurgitate the same slurs that actual racists and white supremacists taught you and use them against other black people when you don't like their opinions.

Your inability to hold a rational convo without your emotions bubbling out control shows me that you didn't reason yourself into these conclusions. The media riled you up, you bought hype and now you're angry.

The truth is that even if Rittenhouse was a racist (which is not true) with confederate flag underwear and swastikas tattooed on his eyelids, the law still protects him like it would anybody. Or do you think I should get killed for being an atheist? My views are offensive and blasphemous to certain people who generally have no qualms about using violence for whatever reason. That is why we have rights, that is why we should be able to defend ourselves. Nobody's existence is provocation. Your rights end where another's start.

So no matter how much you try to dehumanize the other the guy, the fact remains that he only defended himself from violent threats.

benalvino3:
I have told him before that the fbi should not entrap anyone even kkk or nazi or whatever group and he called me a coon.

More than half of the people in KKK and Neo-Nazi groups are either undercover security agents or their informants.

Ibime:
Stop talking rubbish dude. You can only deceive yourself. Your history on this forum and the way you have been lionising Kyle shows your true colours.

Your attempt to narrow this down to simply a self defence case shows where your sympathy lies. My gripe is Kyle going there out of his virulent hatred in the first place. Here's a video of him two weeks earlier watching the riots and saying he wish he had his AR on him so he can pump bullets in the rioters. His mouth has told me where his heart lies, regardless of the fact the actions of that day fall under American standards of self-defence. The same heart is what took him there that night wishing a nigga would.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3B_tpccOnw

So save your sanctimonious bullcrap about self defence. That racist wanted trouble from the jump.

There is nothing like going to counter protest a group who feel aggrieved unless you are intolerant of the group protesting, especially when their rage is so high.

I can't go to counter protest a gay rights demonstration unless there's a virulent hatred driving me there. Neither can I go where Muslims or some other group are protesting. Much less armed and intimidatingly so. Anyone you see counter protesting any group with arms on them has a hatred for that group.

Even in Nigeria when groups are rioting and burning down the City, we put palm fronds on our cars to show we are not against them. It doesn't matter if we disagree with their method of rioting, it would take extreme hatred to tool up to show we are countering whatever they are protesting about

Everybody gets their chance to protest. Citizens job is either to sympathise, or stay home if we don't agree and let Government who we pay our taxes resolve the matter, not to go inflame people on edge. We may even sympathise with some elements of their cause, but be disgusted by their method of rioting about it. I believe that is the way.mist people feel about BLM, but only the Nazis go around forming vigilante to oppose BLM. Here in Britain, most people were disgusted by BLM pulling down statues of old British figures, but only the NeoNazis went out to seek confrontation at the statues. Normal citizens already knew the Police would do their best to protect those statues, but the Nazis went there to seek confrontation.

I don't need a soothsayer to tell me that any Sunni who goes to Abuja to counter protest El ZakZaky people is virulently anti-Shiite. Rittenhouse is a blooming racist, put that in your pipe and smoke it. I don't even need to see him posing with Proud Boys and throwing up their signs to know (which he did). By his going there that night, I already know his orientation. Bible says by their fruits, we shall know them.

Mumu like you will be the one asking for any evidence of George Zimmerman being a racist until you saw Zimmerman auctioning off Confederate flags years later

So spare me the self defence talk, and spare me foolish talk of that boy being a medic

"He riled the rioters up by being there" is not a justification for trying to kill someone. That's the same bullshit "look at what she was wearing argument". You can disagree with his views all you want but the truth is you can't hunt down and kill people for those views. Gaige Grosskreutz and many others went there with their guns because it is their right to do so.

You talk so much about virulent hatred, racism and whatnot but the only people showing virulent hatred were the people who chased and attacked someone with a gun.

You can hate someone's views as much as you want but that doesn't give you the legal right to attack them. And if you do, don't be surprised when they fight back.

He went with his gun because he felt he may need it. Guess what? He did.

You support the burning of a city over an armed criminal who had an outstanding warrant for sexual assault, was in violation of a restraining order, was resisting arrest, andwas trying to flee the scene with a stolen car and kids at the back because you saw a Trevor Noah video on it or something. Not everyone will support that and some will come out in opposition, this is normal. Sane individuals can handle opposing viewpoints without trying to mob people. Joseph Rosenbaum wasn't, the member of the mob who fired in the air wasn't. Rittenhouse was left with no choice but to fight back.

Should he have been there? No. But he had as much right to be as any other person present, like it or not. Like I said, even people that I hate have the rights to defend themselves. No matter how morally superior the media makes you think you are, you can't harm others because of ideological differences.

That's why Rittenhouse walked free.
Not to mention that he handled himself almost like pro given the situation. He didn't start the violence and he only shot those who attacked him.

However, you wanted him to die or be imprisoned just because of his views, both the ones that he actually holds and the imaginary ones you think he does. You must have been a fan of Michael Reinoehl.
The Rule of Law doesn't work that way.
That's why you're angry.
That's why you've resorted name-calling.

Ibime:
I wouldn't be in that situation cos I'm not a child of hatred that goes to flex muscles or guns at people I disagree with.

A mob is supposed to attack you when you shoot one of them. If Grosskeutz had shot Kyle, he'd be the one with the self defence verdict. How can both be right at the same time

Right from the first day I watched the video the day after the shooting I said Kyle will walk under America's crazy laws. That does not mean I am not disgusted by what he went there to do. I even dislike BLM, but what I dislike more are Nazis who go to riots in the name of defending statues or businesses they don't even know. When people are in a rage, whether real or perceived, you let them burn out. Only a real racist will go to such an event in the first place, not a normal person. No man goes strapped to oppose rioters without half a hope of someone giving him a reason to use. A case of I wish a nigga would.

You on the other hand are lionising him. Save your bollocks, you right-wing werey.

You're so full of rage my dude. Armed protesters have always been a thing in America, the Black Panthers even conducted an armed protest back in the 60s. Were they also children of hate or nazis? There have been armed civilians on both sides of the aisle during protests but you only think it's a bad thing now that you see someone who you believe to be your ideological opponent doing it.

By the way, can you provide evidence to show the guy was a nazi? You're just slinging mud and grasping at straws to justify why he should have been lynched. There are videos of him at that event giving first aid to a girl who was hurt during the riot. The only racism I saw came from Rosenbaum who was shouting the n-word at the guy and his group on video.

Also, he hadn't shot anyone before the mob started chasing him so i don't even know what you're going on about there.

He was foolish for being there at the time, granted but I can't help but notice that you give a pass to the people who were burning down the city for what was later discovered to be a justified shooting. Especially when Rittenhouse was the CHILD in this situation.
You hold the child responsible for being at a riot to defend property but not the adults destroying the city. You hold the child responsible for being with a gun when he would have been dead or seriously hurt without it.

Fvck it, whether you are a nazi, commie, jihadist, or whatever messed up ideology that exists, you still have your right to life. Thus, you have the rights to defend yourself from people who want to kill you.

And stop it with this partisan stuff. I couldn't give a crap about left or right wing. Hell, five or six years ago my opinions on gender equality and lgbt rights were considered radical on this forum. Just argue facts, this in-group/out-group stuff kills conversation.

At the end of the day, all this could have been avoided if the media had just reported the facts about Jacob Blake.

Ibime:
Stop lionising him jor. Are you having role model issues?

Rambo no dey fall in combat. Fear tripped him over.

Which self discipline did he show to blast an unarmed Rosenbaum four times. Other militia there said Kyle was flustered, and they had encountered Rosenbaum and turned their back on him cos they knew he was a barking puppy. Kyle got flustered by Rosenbaum.

There is a way to compose yourself with a gun, that will back people off, which is what all the other vigilantes did to Rosenbaum.

I don't understand what you're talking about. An angry mob attacked him, some of whom were armed too, and he came out alive. Life is not John Wick where you're steadily hitting people with headshots. He shot Rosenbaum (who was grabbing his weapon at the time) enough times to bring him down and he even let people know that he had just shot him

He also, showed good enough judgement to not hurt anyone who wasn't attempting to hurt him. He retreated when he could and fought back when cornered. He always used enough force to neutralize his assailants, and in the end he attempted to surrender to police.

Or given that you were in that situation, how would you have handled it differently?

Ibime:
Nothing skilled about hitting targets at that range. Boy was just lucky. If someone can kick him in the head and another can skateboard him while he's holding a gun, his skill level is low. Stop making him out to be Rambo. He was just lucky.

He had just fallen when that guy started kicking him, and its difficult to aim a long rifle at such close range in a heated situation. Also his gun seemed to jam before Huber started his attack, so he cleared the jam, aimed the gun (tbh Huber basically walked into barrel), and ventilated him all while receiving skateboard blows. However, the Grosskreutz encounter was the most impressive. His gun was ready but Grosskreutz raised his hands so Rittenhouse stopped aiming, Grosskreutz then tried to pull a sneaky and draw his weapon while Kyle's guard was down. It wasn't until he had it pointed at Kyle that Kyle blew his bicep off. The same one that was holding the gun, meaning that his hand was just stuck gripping it.

He definitely isn't Rambo but he showed above-average skill, dexterity and discipline for a seventeen year-old in a tense situation.

sanpipita:
You are being speculative, anyone could also say they were trying to disarm him and hand him over to the police, a good level of threat has to be established not speculations, more reason I worry about how people easily throw words like self defense around

You realize that witnesses say that Rosenbaum was shouting threats to Kyle's group all night, right? You realize that there's video footage of Rosenbaum acting aggressively and shouting racial slurs at Kyle's group, right? You realize there's video evidence of Rosenbaum and a gang of thugs chasing a retreating Kyle to corner when one of them fires into the air? Do you also know that afterwards he told he told people that he had just shot someone and those people tried to attend to Rosenbaum until the mob started drawing near and those people told him to leave?

At the point where Kyle is cornered, Rosenbaum grabbed (not just touched) his weapon, and we know this because of the powder burns on his hands which were consistent with someone who was grabbing the barrel of a rifle as it was fired. A good level of threat was already established when he got cornered by an angry mob that was chasing him.

budaatum:
The threat Rittenhouse faced qualifies as potentially "extremely injurious and harmful". If he hadn't protected himself he'd have been lynched.

One might ask why he was there with a gun in the first place, but that would be questioning his Second Amendment Right I'm afraid, which, in the United States of America, is a no go.

I got to say I admire the defence. They made sure he was judged by his 'peers' by keeping blacks off the jury. One black person and this would have been a mistrial if the black person were strong enough, though the judge might have been able to accept a majority decision. He could have in UK at least.

The funny thing is that Kyle Rittenhouse (just like George Zimmerman) is partly latino while all the people he shot were white jews. So why does the race of the jury matter?

sanpipita:
How can touching barrel of gun becomes an excuse for self defense, did touching the barrel of gun immediately put me in dangerous position, mind you Rittenhouse shot four times which was even reckless.

Second and third shooting happened because mob were looking for the shooter, violence has been provoked after the first shooting, if I were to use the logic I see from you guys I will say the mob were acting in self defense from an active shooter.

I can agree with fourth shooting because pointing a gun at someone instantly puts them into a dangerous position of getting harmed

You're telling me that when an angry mob is chasing you and one of them catches up with you and tries to grab your weapon, it is not reasonable to believe that your weapon may be used against you, or that you being disarmed will make you an easy target for the angry mob and your assailant who are currently chasing you down with violent intent.

Secondly, all this can be avoided if you will just watch the damn videos

Ibime:
1995, Police shot one boy dead at my school interhouse sports at PH liberation stadium, see as we pick race.

But Kyle was actually gettable due to the dark night, and so many people to distract him, plus the length of his gun is not easily manouvreable if you get into close range.

Na Huber fückup, he go dey aim for knockout with skateboard when he could have easily grabbed this gun in a bout of egelege. Just jumping on this gun would have ended the matter cos others were coming in.

That's what Rosenbaum tried to do, it ended in tears.

It seems like Kyle is quite skilled with a gun tbh. Also, both Rosenbaum and Huber didn't seem like the type to really think things through

sanpipita:
A threat that's established to be extremely injurious and harmful.

Ok, so you're being chased by an angry mob, they are pelting you with objects as you run. You hear a gunshot from behind you (one of the people in the mob fired into the air). Turning back, you see a guy from the angry mob pulls ahead, charges at you and grabs the barrel of your weapon. You fire at him. Is this self-defence?

Second, the angry mob is still chasing and pelting you with objects. You trip and fall. Just then, two men surround you. One kicks you in the face. You fire at him but miss, causing the man to retreat. Is this self-defence?

Third, you're still on the ground. Of the two men who surrounded you, one has pulled away. The second man pounces on you and hits multiple times on the head with a skateboard. While during the attack, he steps into your line of fire and you take the shot. Is this self-defence?

Fourth, you're still on the ground. The other two threats have just been neutralized. You still have your gun out when a third man joins the fray with his arms raised. Suddenly, he reaches into his waistband, pulls out a pistol and points it at you. You shoot first. Is this self-defence?

Is anyone going to solve this?

sanpipita:
Self defense with a good potential level of threat established, next?

What would you determine as a good potential level of threat?

4DOORSMOREWHORES

sanpipita:
I'm not digressing, Rittenhouse case brings up questions about vilgantism and guns in America, you can even call this a landmark case, he didn't just carry a gun,he shot people again I don't need to see a video to understand how bad such actions are, it's funny you think I based my opinion from 'what people told me' wonder which people are that.

Let's establish some fundamentals, do you believe in the principle of self-defence?

sanpipita:
Conclusion that carrying guns to protests should not be okay? you didn't even bother to answer me on that, there was even police around, why will anyone carry guns, do you even understand America has gun problems already? are you conservant with far right groups and what this judgement means for them? implications of these things go beyond forming smart with quotes.

You're digressing from the point. Rittenhouse is not the first person to bring a gun to a protest. Armed protests have always been legal in America. Like I previously said, the Black panthers have conducted an armed demonstration before. This case isn't going to suddenly make it legal because it has always been.

But my point still remains that you don't actually know what happened in Kenosha that night. You're only basing your opinions on what other people told you when you have access to the videos. So yes, the quote applies to you. The information and evidence are there for you to see yet you still choose to be spoonfed.

sanpipita:
I don't need to see any video before I find something wrong in with guns around a protest scene with police there, bigger issue here is there are groups and I could call them non actors who are wanting to go to protests and shoot people, I won't even be surprised if Kyle Rittenhouse drew inspiration from them, America are playing with fire.

There's a link cutieking dropped here maybe you can read more from it and understand.

OMG, this guy hasn't even watched the videos. This guy has just been parroting media talking heads and Twitter hot takes. How about seeing things for yourself and coming to your own goddamn conclusions?

You've literally had almost a whole year to go through most of the evidence in this case but you didn't. Yet, you believe you can a take stand on the issue and argue about it online.

Yuri Bezmenov said it best: "...exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization"

You are an intelligent, freethinking individual with access to all this information. So next time, act like one and take some goddamn initiative.

raumdeuter:
Are you sure that the law of Wisconsin states it has to be concealed because some of the protesters were carrying guns openly

It doesn't

CutieKing:
Yeah people can carry gun to public places if such state law permits it.those guns will have to be concealed and definitely not an AR under whatever situations.
This case wont end here....we shall all see what the final outcome would be .

Where did you get this info from? Wisconsin gun laws permit open carry but require a gun permit for concealed carry

From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin
Concealed carry
Wisconsin is a shall-issue state for concealed carry licensing. As of November 1, 2011, Wisconsin residents may apply for a concealed carry license through the Wisconsin Department of Justice. The law allows Wisconsin to become the 49th state in the Union to make some provision for the concealed carry of firearms by normal citizens.[5][6][7]

Open carry
Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." However, the exceptions are: “when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun” or "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult."

Ironically, Gaige Grosskreutz, the guy whose arm got vapourized. was carrying a concealed pistol with expired license. I never heard you guys address that.

sanpipita:
How are they supposed too kill him? this is a big precedence that validates non states actors carrying guns to protest in name of law and order, if law and order goes beyond lawful authorities you are calling for anarchy.

Stop with this non-state actors narrative. The guy could've flown from across the country to be there and that still won't give people the rights to kill him.
There were others with guns at the protest and none of them were charged. Why? Because open-carry is legal in Wisconsin. Hell, the Black Panthers have conducted armed protests before. Why? Because they were carrying legally.
Now please answer this question, have you watched the raw footage of the events that transpired that night?

sanpipita:
Lol they acquitted Rittenhouse, big precedence there.

The right to not get killed by an angry mob.

benalvino3:
RITTENHOUSE NOT GUILTY ON ALL Charges. The fake lawyers and judges here can cry white supremacy all they like, justice is served

Based.

sanpipita:
Lol they acquitted Rittenhouse, big precedence there.

Did you even watch the videos? I've known he was innocent since last year

sanpipita:
Lmao Ahmaud Arbery killers are also claiming self defense, America will soon find what they are looking for.

Nah, those guys are guilty af

[quote author=gambojimeta post=107752150][/quote]Looks like you're down with a case of ligma

[quote author=gambojimeta post=107752141][/quote]Oh no, a guy he knows did something wrong. Must be guilty too

[quote author=gambojimeta post=107752043][/quote]Keep 'em coming

gambojimeta:
Adedapo, Ya Isa paedos andi arse fuckers Ina righey like gaetz

Ya Issa also like dirty ashawo arses like ya ma dati ya likey ta licky and sucky

Ya Isa go aski ya mama (adejoke adedara) da question isted ofu ya askins Onu Nairalandis

Wait assuming this is true, how is setting up a nineteen year old with men paedophilia?

Disgusting? Yes. Paedophilia? No.

gambojimeta:
Dis is ah naijeriyan streets . Jungles justices

One days, monkeys likey ya Isa go market andi Isa nat returns

More please I'm so close!!

Ibime:
Ontop say he be Rambo or wetin?

Will he carry AK to office everyday.

Maybe he can work from home, cos if he enter street, wahala go bust.

The streets is undefeated.

Ask Rosenbaum and Huber. Oh wait

Ibime:
These are the standards of the American far-right now, employing an uneducated boy who can't spell or write sentences properly to serve a Congressman just because he shot some people they don't like.

If that boy has any sense, he will go into hiding rather than place himself in a known location, going to work at Gaetz office everyday where street justice can catch up to him.

The last time that an angry mob tried to attack him, it didn't end well for them.

[img][/img]

budaatum:
His playing COD is pertinent if their claim is he was playing COD in real life. It goes to show character and is not the same as the crimes of the victim unless your defense is you shot the victim because of those crimes.

If he was playing CoD in real life he won't have given his opponents the chance to grab his gun, kick him in head, hit him in the head with a skateboard, or point a firearm at him.