Nothing indicated the riders changed their route to follow the guy who cut them off (incredibly dangerous if you’re the bikers in that situation)…when you get cut off, you end up following the person who cut you off unless you just pull over to cry.

“When both men (and the woman) eventually stopped” (at a stop sign? The truck was in front…it was smart to not go around him, it’s not smart to put yourself in front of a raging out of control driver, especially as a rider).
“Rivera stepped out of his truck holding a knife.” Who escalated?

I’m hard pressed to understand how you think the motorcycle escalated the situation considering the circumstances. He was cut off, the truck in front stopped, the crazed man got out brandishing a knife and trying to use it. The rider didn’t pull a weapon until he was actually attacked. He could have legally shot Rivera dead in Florida. I thought he showed great restraint. The police clearly thought the rider had done nothing wrong.

No, he put himself in harms way by crossing state lines and playing cop and being violently aggressive and threatening towards the “thug”, following him, threatening him, brandishing rifles and pointing them at him…”thugs” an odd thing to call them since he was definitely being intentionally thuggish himself. He went there to play dirty cop with a rifle.

I’m upset because he travelled with weapons he couldn’t legally have in order to intentionally hunt the unarmed person he then murdered (or some other person, I don’t think it was personal), and is claiming he’s the victim.

No, I think all people with functioning brains want him to have never gone to another state to play thuggish untrained cop looking for targets to exercise his non existent authority over with illegal deadly weapons he’s not trained to properly use, because someone getting shot unnecessarily is an easily foreseeable consequence of doing that.

Nice, way to not answer the question, as usual. Instead you pretend Rosenbalm followed and menaced Rittenhouse, even though every shred of evidence including the location of the shooting and statement from Rittenhouse say the opposite. It’s ok, we know you think it’s ok to hunt certain groups of people. You don’t have to say it publicly.

Rittenhouse first chased/followed him for blocks from the parking lot he “guarded”, armed, brandishing his weapon and pointing it at Rosenbaum. When Rosenbaum stopped retreating, Rittenhouse shot him in the head.

In his testimony, McGinniss said that as Rosenbaum lunged, Rittenhouse “kind of dodged around” with his weapon and then leveled the gun and fired.

Binger repeatedly tried to get McGinniss to say Rosenbaum was not “lunging” but “falling” when he was shot, as McGinniss said in a media interview days after the shooting,
McGinniss said: “He was lunging, falling. I would use those as synonymous terms in this situation because basically, you know, he threw his momentum towards the weapon.”
So, his unbiased testimony is the unarmed victim was lunging for the weapon after being shot in the head….not falling….or they’re the same thing.

It's not at all bad faith, since it's what he came for and what he did. He crossed state lines armed looking for trouble he might stop using his gun. He went armed to play cop with zero training and illegally carrying a weapon he was too young to have. He might have Intended to only shoot at arsonists, but what he did was randomly shoot into crowds and down the streets, killing two non arsonists, allegedly while blind due to being pepper sprayed.

I can't decipher your good guilty easy innocent hard targets. What?

He has no right to deputize himself, no matter what property crimes he assumed were forthcoming.

Yeah, try to equate property crime to violent murder, it only shows you aren't arguing in good faith yourself.

He was blocks from the parking lot he came, uninvited, to "protect". Was his beat the whole city now?

Big difference between crossing state lines to guard someone else's business and guarding your own home, more bad faith arguments. You can use force to protect your home and family from threats of serious harm, you can't shoot your neighbor for trespassing and cutting some tree branches you didn't want cut.

Do you know who owned the property he murdered the first guy on? Maybe he stands with the crowd and militia boy was trespassing, brandishing a rifle, and eventually murdering someone there before running and gunning his way back home without reporting the shootings, ensuring that property will be torched within a week.
Great job protecting them. For all he knew he was shooting the owner, he wasn't protecting property when he shot.
That is the innocent property owner here, not the owner of the owner of the original parking lot he was guarding, not the kid or his parents, and this gung ho kid's actions ensured their properties destruction and exacerbated the unrest, triggering more property damage. Good job, fucknuts...enjoy big boy prison.

^...addition to my comment above...


I find it a hollow excuse that tough militia boy was scared into eventually killing people because they brandished a gun when he went there to do exactly that, brandish guns with his friends at protesters, and would definitely say that is not threatening when he does it.

It's better for her to pull a gun and stand her ground with 3 dead then brandish a knife.

He didn't have full auto, he used a bump fire stock.
Full auto fires around 20hz. Well practiced bump firing is around 10hz. Well practiced semi auto pull is around 6hz.

Bump firing also sprays so bad it's not aimable beyond a few feet distance. The gun community is even more surprised than other people, most considered the bump stock as a joke doo dad for making noise and wasting money.





All vendors, even at a gun show, must do background checks.

All private sellers, regardless of where (at home, gun show, on the street, wherever), are not required to do checks - but are in practice held liable for subsequent gun crimes if they can't prove they had no idea the buyer was shady.

There is absolutely nothing special about gun shows. The gun show loophole is an entirely imaginary issue (I explained this earlier).




A traceable gun is just as capable of shooting a person as an untraceable gun.



Yes, anyone can put together that arsenal.
Especially anyone with a squeaky clean record who qualifies to be a gun owner no matter what the restriction - like the Vegas shooter.

Hence why *nothing proposed* would have had *any impact* on the Vegas events, short of confiscation raids nation wide and capital punishment for possession.





The reply was to : "You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't."

I have two interpretations of that chart

1) (my initial thought)
Assault understood as the legal meaning (brandishing, threatening, not necessarily killing).
Discharge understood as firing.
This is what the original math was based on.
But yes, it seems senseless because how can you die to brandishing?

You are correct regarding the "per year".
The original math does include the mistake of thinking it was cause of death, not per year chance of death.
That alters the result from 350'000 lifetimes for a 50/50 chance, down to 350'000 years for a 50/50 chance. AKA 4600 lifetimes worth of years for a 50/50 chance in the next year.

2) (your [likely correct] thought)
Assault understood as being fired upon.
Discharge understood as accidental (what else could it mean?)
This variant is computed below.
However, this challenges conventional assertion, because the common assertion is that accidents kill more than intentional. Maybe that assertion is crap.

1/24974 as caused by assault
That's a 99.995995835669095859694081845119% chance of dying by a cause OTHER than firearms.
Which requires around 17'000 trials for the chance of the next death to be 50% by firearm.
I.E. 99.995995835669095859694081845119% ^ 17'000 = 50.625%, or about 50/50.
AKA 226 lifetimes worth of years to have a 50/50 chance of death by firearm in the next year.

Referring to the study I linked earlier :
http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life
#2 version has a similar death chance to the polstats link, so the #2 variant is likely the appropriate understanding (not my initial understanding).

-schehearzade

Your video, Officer Brandishing Weapon On ATV Motorist In North Pole, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Took the shots.
He fired 3 times, and missed with all 3 shots if you believe he was shooting at the seated man brandishing a fully automatic toy truck.
That's a criminal level of incompetence if you ask me.

Um...wait.
So you're saying that if he wasn't in the open (but was still unarmed and still surrendering) it would be acceptable to kill him?
So you're saying that if the police didn't have "cover" from the unarmed unthreatening seated man/boy and/or his prone, unarmed, non threatening caretaker, it would be acceptable to kill him?
So you're saying that if someone felt threatened (which someone claimed they did, claiming he had a gun) it would be acceptable to kill whomever they are feeling threatened by, no matter what the actual threat level? (wouldn't that make it open season on cops, who make any reasonable black man feel threatened/in fear for their life?)
Are you saying that, had one of them actually HAD a gun, it would automatically be acceptable to kill them? (would that stand if it was a white woman with the gun? Why would it not stand for a man wearing blue?)

More than 'pressure' needs to be applied....the law needs to be applied. Police are not above the law, and have to account for their actions. When those actions are so incredibly unacceptable in so many ways, that accountability needs to include serious prison time or there's no accountability in reality. It's only by pure luck that there weren't two dead victims here....and there was NEVER a reason for ANY firearm to be drawn. If the cops don't see a gun, they should never pull theirs....they could reasonably un-latch their holsters IMO, and even put their hand on it, but not ever pull it until someone else brandishes theirs, and never shoot until someone else shoots first....IMO. They have a duty to be MORE responsible than the average citizen, not less.

Your video, Drunk Monkey Brandishing Huge Knife Terrorizes Bar, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I guess the toolishness would have been more evident if this guy would have been one of those guys who go into family restaurants while brandishing AR-15's, in open carry states? Those guys are exercising rights that people in some sense fought and died to be able to establish, and they're acting within their legal rights... but they're just such fucking assholes. Maybe you take a stand on principle and call those guys heroes too; if so I'd admire your consistency but still disagree.

Nope, not over reaching in the least. He attacked while armed, that's brandishing/menacing, and assault with a deadly weapon, he ran at her, said something to her while he did it, then touched her, that's assault and battery, he stole her phone, that's grand theft (phones are expensive) smashed it, that's destruction of private property, kicked it at her, that's battery with an object, and he did it all to hide evidence of his actions, that's felony destruction of evidence.

Yes, if I attack you on public property while armed, smack the phone out of your hand, stomp it, then kick it at you while I'm at work, I should be fired AND prosecuted...while you just say "no"? Please explain your logic (or complete lack thereof).

Wow. You really lack the capacity to understand the point of smashing the phone was to stop her from having evidence of their actions? Please explain, who's going to make him pay for a phone or reprimand him when it's a citizen's word against the lies of all (3) officers there? If there wasn't this second video, they, you, and lantern would still be claiming this didn't happen and is just a lefty making up BS to attack good cops...in fact even with the video you and lantern seem to be trying to say that.

It IS a pattern. You've got 3 officers involved here, and not one good one stopping or reporting them. In fact, in all of these daily (or more often) abusive cop videos you almost always see other officers standing by while their fellow officers commit violent crimes, but you NEVER see one of those by standing officers do their job and STOP the abusive cop....NEVER.
That makes it a probable profession-pervasive pattern.

If that's honestly the extent of your use of force, and they all were proper arrests on people who were also resisting (you only said one of them was resisting), and those you brandished at were armed and violently resisting, that sounds acceptable, but totally abnormal. I would guess that not all those you brandished at were armed threats.
EDIT:A good question....was every suspect you used force against convicted? If not, it seems you made a mistake and were a violent assailant to an 'innocent citizen' yourself, no? If there's no repercussion for those kinds of 'bad acts', how do you know it's wrong? (I'll answer, it seems you don't.)
My experience has been that cops brandish their weapons at anyone they think may be criminal, including those only guilty of 'contempt of cop', like me when a cop read my license plate wrong and assumed the car was stolen, so he violently threw me to the ground at gunpoint and violently handcuffed me (as tight as he could make them go) and acted like a douchebag bully until he realized his mistake. (I followed all his directions to the T without pause but was still treated like I was resisting.) Then there's no apology, in fact he said something more like 'You know why I did that, now go on your way or I'll find something else to arrest you for, and don't think about making a complaint, I know where you live now.' That's only one instance in my life out of many where cops did not act properly, due to no fault of my own. (I was not intimidated by his threat and did make a formal complaint anyway.)

That's 3 shootings (maybe 2 were the same cop?). It sounds like one may have been improper, shooting someone in the back is usually not acceptable, unless he had just been shooting at the cop and turned to run just before being shot, or was running at someone else that needed protecting. If he was not an immediate threat to someone, there was no reason to shoot him in the back rather than track him until he could be safely arrested.
It seems you have a problem understanding our position. We understand that 95% of interactions with cops are done properly and often respectfully. That does not excuse the other 5% by any means, just as it does not excuse someone from committing murder if they were a fine, upstanding citizen otherwise. Get it? It only takes one bad act to erase all your good acts. That's the way of the world. You can't say 'Yeah, I raped that 6 year old, but come on guys, I take good care of little old ladies the rest of the time, so it's fine.'. That doesn't play, neither does 'Most of the time we're good cops, so we should get a pass for those 'rare' times when we are terrible thugs and violent criminals.'
EDIT: It's not only deadly force that is inappropriately applied. You don't have to end up murdering the citizen to have acted inappropriately violent. I hope I'm not telling you something you don't know, only pointing out something you ignored.
The fact that you don't seem to think mandatory counseling is appropriate for those in 'authority' that have failed in their job (to protect citizens) and resorted to using force against citizens (yes, I consider that a fail, there's nearly always another option) is bothering. As I explained, it leaves you feeling it's 'us VS them' (which has been shown to be your mindset from your past comments) and that's terrible for someone in authority to think. I think you need counseling to fix that mindset, and find it troubling that you might disagree (yet are still in a position of power).