Enthusiasm Gap & Secret Voters?

[Atticus Finch]

5 minutes ago, concha said:

Andy doesn't know what self-defense is.

concha's definition of self-defense is when anybody who's conservative claims it.

[concha]

Just now, Atticus Finch said:

That didn't stop you from condemning the agitators in Kenosha.

Again, concha, everybody knows your game.

You are going to defend anybody who agrees with you. This is not new.

The only person that we know for sure was breaking the law in either case was Kyle Rittenhouse.

You have not said one single word about him.

But two dead men in Kenosha? Criminal agitators. An anonymous shooter in Portland? Left-wing looter.

 

You mean as they were all caught on video chasing and assaulting the kid, one was throwing objects at him and then tried to grab his gun, one tried to brain him while he was down and another was approaching him and pulling a handgun to kill him?

🤡  🤡  🤡

 

[Atticus Finch]

5 minutes ago, concha said:

I'm not going to lose my shit over a one day thing while you people quietly act as though MONTHS of far worse behavior by your side goes on, Andy.  

So they were agitating for sure but it was only for one day and nobody should lose their shit over it.

Cool.

So you acknowledge that what I said was true.

I already knew that but thanks.

[concha]

1 minute ago, Atticus Finch said:

concha's definition of self-defense is when anybody who's conservative claims it.

 

Or a kid being chased by left-wing loons with criminal records who throw objects at him, try to grab his weapon, try to brain him while he's on the ground, try to shoot him...

🤡  🤡  🤡

 

[Atticus Finch]

Just now, concha said:

You mean as they were all caught on video chasing and assaulting the kid, one was throwing objects at him and then tried to grab his gun, one tried to brain him while he was down and another was approaching him and pulling a handgun to kill him

No, Kyle possessed a gun illegally in Wisconsin.

He was the clearest law-breaker of the lot.

Everything else is just you trying to justify his actions. If somebody was about to shoot me I'd try to take the gun away, too. Everything else is as clear as mud.

Except that Kyle Rittenhouse was breaking the law.

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, concha said:

Or a kid being chased by left-wing loons with criminal records who throw objects at him, try to grab his weapon, try to brain him while he's on the ground, try to shoot him...

A kid who was breaking the law but you won't mention that. You'll only mention the criminal records of the dead men.

If the dead guy in Portland has a criminal record will you then change your position?

[concha]

15 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

No, Kyle possessed a gun illegally in Wisconsin.

He was the clearest law-breaker of the lot.

Everything else is just you trying to justify his actions. If somebody was about to shoot me I'd try to take the gun away, too. Everything else is as clear as mud.

Except that Kyle Rittenhouse was breaking the law.

 

There may be arguments as to whether or not he was breaking the law:   https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

 

And you just keep making shit up, Andy.  🤡

There is literally zero evidence that the kid was trying to shoot anyone until he was assaulted. Z-E-R-O

He was trying to get AWAY.  🤡

Crystal clear in all the videos.

In fact, isn't it fascinating that he ONLY shot people who were assaulting him and trying to kill him?  🤡

 

[concha]

18 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

A kid who was breaking the law but you won't mention that. You'll only mention the criminal records of the dead men.

If the dead guy in Portland has a criminal record will you then change your position?

 

Do we know if he was physically assaulting someone at the time of his death and the person was in fear for their life?

Rittenhouse's attackers were and Rittenhouse himself obviously was.

 

 

 

[I AM IRONMAN]

Kyle will walk.....Blake..not so much

[DBP66]

2 hours ago, concha said:

 

Or a kid being chased by left-wing loons with criminal records who throw objects at him, try to grab his weapon, try to brain him while he's on the ground, try to shoot him...

🤡  🤡  🤡

 

he was a murderer trying to flee the crime screen....the people trying to catch the killer were heroes….

[I AM IRONMAN]

4 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

he was a murderer trying to flee the crime screen....the people trying to catch the killer were heroes….

There ya go again.....

🙊🙉🙈

C'MON man....you know...the thing

[DBP66]

3 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

There ya go again.....

🙊🙉🙈

C'MON man....you know...the thing

what time do you get out of school today mam??...

[15yds4gibberish]

2 hours ago, concha said:

 

There may be arguments as to whether or not he was breaking the law:   https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

 

And you just keep making shit up, Andy.  🤡

There is literally zero evidence that the kid was trying to shoot anyone until he was assaulted. Z-E-R-O

He was trying to get AWAY.  🤡

Crystal clear in all the videos.

In fact, isn't it fascinating that he ONLY shot people who were assaulting him and trying to kill him?  🤡

 

When people do read the article, they will find, as is typical, that the law is multifaceted and subject to interpretation.  This is why we have a judicial system, as deeply imperfect as it is, to wade through he issues and hopefully administer justice. 

When people read the article for themselves, they will see among many things it says this about the law in Wisconsin:

 

And hopefully, after reading the article, people will begin to think, ‘hmmm, maybe the law doesn’t really support travelling 30 minutes, crossing state lines, using an AR 15 to confront protesters, resulting in the killing of two people, and the injury of another. Maybe street vigilanteism is the exact opposite of law and order.’

Once one starts down the path of rationalizing vigilantes killing people as ‘bout time someone did something,’ there really isn’t much left that can’t be rationalized.  Praising Rittenhouse as some kind of right wing self defense hero will only bring out more Rittenhouse’s taking the law into their own hands, more violence, and more killing.

This really isn’t hard.  Peaceful protest is patriotic.  Looting, violence, and killing is not.  We need leaders to bring calm to chaos, not to sow division. 

[concha]

3 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

When people do read the article, they will find, as is typical, that the law is multifaceted and subject to interpretation.  This is why we have a judicial system, as deeply imperfect as it is, to wade through he issues and hopefully administer justice. 

When people read the article for themselves, they will see among many things it says this about the law in Wisconsin:

 

And hopefully, after reading the article, people will begin to think, ‘hmmm, maybe the law doesn’t really support travelling 30 minutes, crossing state lines, using an AR 15 to confront protesters , resulting in the killing of two people, and the injury of another. Maybe street vigilanteism is the exact opposite of law and order.’

Once one starts down the path of rationalizing vigilantes killing people as ‘bout time someone did something,’ there really isn’t much left that can’t be rationalized.  Praising Rittenhouse as some kind of right wing self defense hero will only bring out more Rittenhouse’s taking the law into their own hands, more violence, and more killing.

This really isn’t hard.  Peaceful protest is patriotic.  Looting, violence, and killing is not.  We need leaders to bring calm to chaos, not to sow division. 

 

He didn't.

Why does this sail over your head?

He was being assaulted. Clearly.

He didn't shoot anyone for breaking a window or torching a place.

 

 

[RedZone]

3 minutes ago, concha said:

He didn't shoot anyone for breaking a window or torching a place.

Why was he there then with an AR-15 rifle?......don't worry about an answer.

No one cares.

[DBP66]

4 minutes ago, concha said:

 

He didn't.

Why does this sail over your head?

He was being assaulted. Clearly.

He didn't shoot anyone for breaking a window or torching a place...then why did he murder 2 people?...in a state he doesn't live in with a gun he can't legally use/own...he's a murderer.

 

 

 

[Atticus Finch]

2 hours ago, concha said:

There may be arguments as to whether or not he was breaking the law:   https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

There are always arguments if the person breaking the law agrees with concha politically.

Thanks for affirming what I've already said.

🤡

[Atticus Finch]

12 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Once one starts down the path of rationalizing vigilantes killing people as ‘bout time someone did something,’ there really isn’t much left that can’t be rationalized.

He proved what a biased turd he was when he went down that road.

But we all already knew that about him.

[Atticus Finch]

6 minutes ago, RedZone said:

Why was he there then with an AR-15 rifle?......don't worry about an answer.

No one cares.

First, concha claimed that he was there to help people.

Then when he killed two people he was defending himself.

But nobody drives 20 miles away with their AR-15 to defend themselves.

So which is it?

[concha]

Just now, Atticus Finch said:

First, concha claimed that he was there to help people.

Then when he killed two people he was defending himself.

But nobody drives 20 miles away with their AR-15 to defend themselves.

So which is it?

 

He didn't drive 20 miles with an AR-15, Andy.

He had a job in Kenosha.  The rifle was a friend's.

He stuck around to help paint over graffiti on people's businesses and then volunteered to help look after a local business.

He was assaulted and defended himself.  As is clear in multiple videos.

Your dishonest fantasies are laughable.

🤡  🤡  🤡

 

 

[RedZone]

2 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

First, concha claimed that he was there to help people.

Then when he killed two people he was defending himself.

But nobody drives 20 miles away with their AR-15 to defend themselves.

So which is it?

I've had enough of his ridiculous double-talk.

Don't even care anymore.

[Atticus Finch]

2 hours ago, concha said:

There may be arguments as to whether or not he was breaking the law:   https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

“At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.”

The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.

In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit.

Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records.

concha's tells are so easy.

When he's not flat out lying he just uses weasel words like "arguable" or phrases like "there may be arguments" to smuggle in his desire to let a criminal go free because of his obvious political affinity.

[concha]

7 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

There are always arguments if the person breaking the law agrees with concha politically.

Thanks for affirming what I've already said.

🤡

 

Andy getting upset that I post an article that says something he doesn't like and can't refute...

🤣

 

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, concha said:

He had a job in Kenosha.  The rifle was a friend's.

So he was there for work, now.

First, he was there to help people.

Then he was there to defend himself.

Now, he was there to work.

👌

[concha]

1 minute ago, Atticus Finch said:

“At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.”

The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.

In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit.

Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records.

concha's tells are so easy.

When he's not flat out lying he just uses weasel words like "arguable" or phrases like "there may be arguments" to smuggle in his desire to let a criminal go free because of his obvious political affinity.

 

Politifact...

Well, that's like a unanimous Supreme Court decision.  🤡

 

And it still doesn't address the fact that Rittenhouse defended himself.

If the courts decide he shouldn't have had a gun, then fine (if and when that happens).

He was still assaulted and still was acting in self-defense.