Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial (Jacob Blake Protest Shooting)

The Lonious Monk said:
Protesters are not going to the protests to confront counter protesters. That's not their purpose. They were protesting before counter protesting was a thing. The counter protesters are the ones that grabbed guns and entered the scene with the specific purpose of confronting protesters. I'm sure you can find incidents where there has been violence committed by the protesters, but the protesters weren't the ones that turned it into a situation where guns are needed for protection. How long were the protests active before we even heard about anyone getting shot or killed? Which side started the shooting? I'm not saying that only one side can bring guns. I'm saying that nobody should need guns for peaceful protests, but the people on the right are the reason guns have entered the picture not the other way around. So they don't get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their reasoning for why they are carrying.
Click to expand...

Alllll that may be true, but we're talking about how things are now, and were the night of the shooting. At that time both sides had people that bring guns and seek out violence. I'm not saying people on the right didn't originally create that atmosphere. Just that at the time these guys went to the protest, they both had legit reasons to prepare for violence from the other side.

It's naive to give everyone protesting the benefit of the doubt given how things are now. At this point both sides have people looking for violence, regardless of what group started it. I'm not giving either side any more or less benefit of the doubt. They just tried to seal the exits and set fire to a police station... they tried to burn people alive. Things have changed.
 
Last edited:
Bow to Royalty said:
Alllll that may be true, but we're talking about how things are now, and were the night of the shooting. At that time both sides had people that bring guns and seek out violence. I'm not saying people on the right didn't originally create that atmosphere. Just that at the time this guys used to the protest, they both had legit reasons to prepare for violence from the other side.

It's naive to give everyone protesting the benefit of the doubt given how things are now. At this point both sides have people looking for violence, regardless of what group started it. I'm not giving either side any more or less benefit of the doubt. They just tried to seal the exits and set fire to a police station... they tried to burn people alive. Things have changed.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but at the same time I believe you're overplaying the "both sides" shit here. Yes, some protesters have been violent, but still, by and large, the purpose of protesters is to protest while pretty much all the gun toting right wingers are there with hopes that something pops off.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
I see what you're saying, but at the same time I believe you're overplaying the "both sides" shit here. Yes, some protesters have been violent, but still, by and large, the purpose of protesters is to protest while pretty much all the gun toting right wingers are there with hopes that something pops off.
Click to expand...

I can largely agree with this too. But just because the counter protester has the mindset of "I wish someone would run up on me...", doesn't mean he can't legally claim self defense if he's attacked by a "I'm gonna fuck somebody up tonight" protester.

That's what I've been telling people from jump. If the guy he shot in the head didn't have a valid reason to attack him, it's self-defense. Just seeing and not liking someone isn't legal grounds to attack them.

I'm not saying the kids a good person. I'm not saying he should have been there. I'm not saying I agree with his views. I'm not saying he went there with the intention of avoiding violence. I'm only saying he had the legal right to be there, the legal right to express his views, and the legal right to defend himself. Guy that got shot in the head didn't have the legal right to attack him over his presence or his views. But as far as we know right now, that's what he did. So given that, it's self defense.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
He's gonna go down as a BLM protester. People hear that and associate it with black people. So initiating violence, pushing dumpsters filled with fire at people, and other destruction is white crime black people are taking heat for.

So nah, he's not getting pass on his behavior or a pass to say nigga.
Click to expand...

Ok sis but he dead now
 
I really dislike then calling that thug Kyle a 17yo

He needs to be prosecuted as the adult he proclaims to be
 
StringerBell said:
Click to expand...


Trash tweet. I swear some people just are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, hoping they can't do their own research. We all know what kinda situation is implied when you say someone got shot in the back, and anyone that's seen the video knows that's not the situation that happened.

Do any of y'all think saying someone was shot in the back doesn't imply they were trying to get away, or got snuck up on? Do any of y'all think his first victim was trying to get away from him or was snuck up on?

Don't support the spread of misinformation just because the person's on your side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top