33 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Right wing nutbags: The glass causes cancer and takes away your freedom!!!

Just now, Toastrel said:

Right wing nutbags: The glass causes cancer and takes away your freedom!!!

must have hit THAT nerve

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

must have hit THAT nerve

Yep, the twang of right wing nutbags is just grating.

10 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

must have hit THAT nerve

lmfao, probably my favorite thing about CVON - the lack of awareness of people who claim to be in the middle or neither on the right or left.  

20 minutes ago, Kz! said:

lmfao, probably my favorite thing about CVON - the lack of awareness of people who claim to be in the middle or neither on the right or left.  

I really enjoyed Riot Kitchen actually saying he wasn't on the left the other day  

3 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

I really enjoyed Riot Kitchen actually saying he wasn't on the left the other day  

who is riot kitchen? 

3 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

I really enjoyed Riot Kitchen actually saying he wasn't on the left the other day  

He and toaster definitely provide some of the best content in this regard. They're both completely 100% serious when they say it.

I think @Paul852 is mostly just trolling when he says he's a moderate, but if he's not, he's up there, too.  

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

who is riot kitchen? 

@JohnSnowsHair

He really needs to just change his name already to cut down on the confusion. 

10 minutes ago, Kz! said:

He and toaster definitely provide some of the best content in this regard. They're both completely 100% serious when they say it.

I think @Paul852 is mostly just trolling when he says he's a moderate, but if he's not, he's up there, too.  

@JohnSnowsHair

He really needs to just change his name already to cut down on the confusion. 

why do you call him riot kitchen? 

7 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

why do you call him roit kitchen? 

Fun story.

Riot Kitchen is an Antifa related food truck that started in Portland and would travel to different riot hotspots in the country and feed and provide material support for the Antifa rioters who were destroying entire cities. Well, they traveled all the way from Portland to Kenosha, Wisconsin after the Blake shooting to participate in the riots there. Police observed them filling dozens of gas cans up, I believe. Also think they were caught with bricks and other riot tools. So police detained them. At the time, the media made a really big deal about police forces going fascist and bizarrely claimed this was an example of that even though they were caught with a ton of riot material and they have a well-documented history of participating in riots.

Enter @JohnSnowsHair who somehow fell for the narrative. He literally argued the point for multiple pages while most people were just laughing at him. Probably one of the more hilarious interactions I've read on here.  

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

Fun story.

Riot Kitchen is an Antifa related food truck that started in Portland and would travel to different riot hotspots in the country and feed and provide material support for the Antifa rioters who were destroying entire cities. Well, they traveled all the way from Portland to Kenosha, Wisconsin after the Blake shooting to participate in the riots there. Police observed them filling dozens of gas cans up, I believe. Also think they were caught with bricks and other riot tools. So police detained them. At the time, the media made a really big deal about police forces going fascist and bizarrely claimed this was an example of that even though they were caught with a ton of riot material. 

Enter @JohnSnowsHair who somehow fell for the narrative. He literally argued the point for multiple pages while most people were just laughing at him. Probably one of the more hilarious interactions I've read on here.  

Thanks- I somehow missed all of that, but appreciate the clarification. You learn new things daily!

9 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

why do you call him riot kitchen? 

 

Start there and enjoy the LOLs - there's some really amazing ishlibs takes over the following pages

Ishlibs literally don't know what gender they are exhibit 4,987,436:

 

How kind of San Fran. We won't help stop the crime but here is an advocate to help with the trauma.

 

Expansion Of Victim Services To Include Property Crime Advocates

By Staff -Dec 17, 20210

SAN FRANCISCO—On Wednesday, December 15, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office announced the expansion of the District Attorney’s Office’s Victim Services Division (“VSD”).  District Attorney Boudin has, for the first time, secured funding to expand VSD to include two property crime advocates. The two advocates will support victims of residential burglaries and businesses experiencing storefront vandalism.  The first of the two advocates started this week. 

https://www.thesfnews.com/expansion-of-victim-services-to-include-property-crime-advocates/80475

 

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

Fun story.

Riot Kitchen is an Antifa related food truck that started in Portland and would travel to different riot hotspots in the country and feed and provide material support for the Antifa rioters who were destroying entire cities. Well, they traveled all the way from Portland to Kenosha, Wisconsin after the Blake shooting to participate in the riots there. Police observed them filling dozens of gas cans up, I believe. Also think they were caught with bricks and other riot tools. So police detained them. At the time, the media made a really big deal about police forces going fascist and bizarrely claimed this was an example of that even though they were caught with a ton of riot material and they have a well-documented history of participating in riots.

Enter @JohnSnowsHair who somehow fell for the narrative. He literally argued the point for multiple pages while most people were just laughing at him. Probably one of the more hilarious interactions I've read on here.  

 

1 hour ago, mikemack8 said:

 

Start there and enjoy the LOLs - there's some really amazing ishlibs takes over the following pages

 

yeah, not surprisingly that's a horrible summary of my objection.

my objection was solely that an officer was allowed to detain a vehicle on the basis of an anonymous tip that amounted to "there are some cars with out of states in a parking lot". that was literally what the police said the anonymous tip revealed - that there were some out of state vehicles parked in a parking lot.

you don't need probable cause to pull over a vehicle, but police officers also cannot simply pull over a random person based on nothing more than a hunch. there has to be reasonable suspicion. 

Scalia agreed with me when this was argued before SCOTUS in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarette_v._California 

however the court still upheld that if the tip is deemed "reliable" then an officer can pull over a vehicle under "reasonable suspicion" of a crime. 

my primary concern here is that calling in an anonymous tip is pretty easy and low risk. it would be very easy for officers to game that situation and manufacture a reason to pull basically anybody over under "reasonable suspicion". 

I'm in good company with Scalia. but Kz has a name he can call me to feel better about himself so I guess it's a win-win?

A summary from wikipedia of Scalia's dissent, which was pretty scating:

Quote

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's opinion was a "freedom-destroying cocktail."[49] Although he recognized anonymous tips may sometimes be reliable, he rejected the majority's conclusion that "anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location."[49] He wrote, "[t]his is not my concept, and I am sure would not be the Framers’, of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."[50] Justice Scalia argued that anonymous tips are inherently unreliable, because anonymous tipsters can "lie with impunity."[51] While he admitted 911 calls are, in fact, easily traceable, Justice Scalia argued that there was no evidence the 911 caller knew they could be identified when they placed the call.[52] Additionally, Justice Scalia distinguished the tip in this case from the tip in White, where "the reliability of the tip was established by the fact that it predicted the target’s behavior in the finest detail — a detail that could be known only by someone familiar with the target’s business."[53] He argued that the general details provided in this case's 911 call were unreliable, because "everyone in the world who saw the car would have that knowledge, and anyone who wanted the car stopped would have to provide that information."[53] Likewise, Justice Scalia argued that there was no evidence that the report of being run off the road was actually true.[54]

Justice Scalia also criticized the majority's conclusion that the tip provided reasonable suspicion that Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were driving while drunk, because "the truck might have swerved to avoid an animal, a pothole, or a jaywalking pedestrian .... Or, indeed, he might have intentionally forced the tipster off the road because of some personal animus, or hostility to her 'Make Love, Not War' bumper sticker."[55] Furthermore, Justice Scalia argued that one discrete instance of irregular driving does not give rise to the reasonable suspicion of an ongoing threat of an intoxicated driver on the road.[56] Justice Scalia also argued that the anonymous tip's claims of reckless driving were ultimately discredited by the fact that officers followed Lorenzo and Jose for five minutes, but observed nothing suspicious.[57] He wrote, "I take it as a fundamental premise of our intoxicated-driving laws that a driver soused enough to swerve once can be expected to swerve again — and soon. If he does not, and if the only evidence of his first episode of irregular driving is a mere inference from an uncorroborated, vague, and nameless tip, then the Fourth Amendment requires that he be left alone."[49] In his concluding remarks, Justice Scalia wrote "[d]runken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference .... After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving."[58]

 

17 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

 

yeah, not surprisingly that's a horrible summary of my objection.

my objection was solely that an officer was allowed to detain a vehicle on the basis of an anonymous tip that amounted to "there are some cars with out of states in a parking lot". that was literally what the police said the anonymous tip revealed - that there were some out of state vehicles parked in a parking lot.

you don't need probable cause to pull over a vehicle, but police officers also cannot simply pull over a random person based on nothing more than a hunch. there has to be reasonable suspicion. 

Scalia agreed with me when this was argued before SCOTUS in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarette_v._California 

however the court still upheld that if the tip is deemed "reliable" then an officer can pull over a vehicle under "reasonable suspicion" of a crime. 

my primary concern here is that calling in an anonymous tip is pretty easy and low risk. it would be very easy for officers to game that situation and manufacture a reason to pull basically anybody over under "reasonable suspicion". 

I'm in good company with Scalia. but Kz has a name he can call me to feel better about himself so I guess it's a win-win?

Bruh, he's still doing it a year later lmfao  

4 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Bruh, he's still doing it a year later lmfao  

and you're still too stupid to understand what I was objecting to.

to you, due process = "you love riot kitchen LOL DERP!" 

 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 12:30 AM, mayanh8 said:

Reckless homicide is the shoe that fits perfectly. 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 9:06 AM, Phillyterp85 said:

Philandro Castile, legally allowed to own a gun.  He was not holding it at the time. Was not resisting arrest.  Was not a threat. Officer murdered him anyway.

Kyle Rittenhouse, actively committing a felony.  Already shot 3 people.  Police don’t even detain him. 
 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 9:41 AM, Phillyterp85 said:

Yes I’m not surprised you don’t understand my "obsession” (lol) with Rittenhouse.  Oh gee he turned out not to be a threat after the fact?  Hmm I wonder how many people we could also say that about had the police not shot them on the suspicion that they might be a threat.....

What I want is for police to not shoot someone as a first resort.   What I want is for police departments to get rid of the bad apples that have no business being a cop.  What I want is for the police union to be stripped of its power as the main reason why bad apples are allowed to stay on is BECAUSE of the power of the union.

I also want people to comply with officers’ orders.  Their job is tough enough, so you’re not doing yourself any favors by now doing what they say, regardless of whether or not they stopped you for a valid reason.  Put ego aside, walk away with your life and win in court later if they are wrong.
The fact that Rittenhouse wasn’t even detained is an absolute joke.  He was actively committing a felony just by walking around with that gun.  Let alone the fact that he had just shot 3 people. 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 9:53 AM, downundermike said:

After he shot the first person, people tried to disarm him.  If you see that as an attack, well that's you.  I see it as citizens doing there civic duty to detain a child, illegally open carrying in Wisconsin who just murdered somebody.

FYP

 

On 8/28/2020 at 9:55 AM, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

 

 

 

I don't even know why I try, as you continue to purposely dodge the point I was making.

"If you're an authoritarian bootlicker you might be ok with cops pulling cars over and searching them with only 'anonymous tips' as 'evidence'"

next time Kz is riding around town in his Kia, I guess he'd be ok submitting to being pulled over and searched because an "anonymous tip" came in that he was hauling a buttload of white claws across state lines to visit his sodomy buddies. that was the point.

on one hand you have vehicles that were pulled over and searched on the basis of nothing more than an "anonymous tip", on the other hand you have an underage wannabee cop who was illegally walking around with an AR-15 he carried across state lines who had just shot up a bunch of people, and he gets water fetched for him (I guess he was a little sweaty from his taxing effort) before he goes on his way.

yeah. I'm the crazy one. 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:03 AM, downundermike said:

I have watched every video I can find about the first shooting.  I have yet to see anything that indicates there was anything happening that required self defense.

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:10 AM, Kz! said:

Everyone with a shred of common sense knows what Riot Kitchen is. No one is buying your stupid police state narrative. It is entertaining to watch you perpetually step on the banana peel in this thread, so I support your contributions.

 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:12 AM, bobeph said:

 

Srsly, is this Snow Hair dude ukn’ retarded or is it an act? 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:13 AM, binkybink77 said:

Police get a tip that a violent group of rioters that literally refer to themselves as rioters were planning a riot with their busses and vans - police observe them filling up multiple gas cans into their suspicious out of state vehicles and this guy supports the kidnapping narrative       IT'S TOO MUCH.. my abs are getting a workout from laughing so hard   

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:17 AM, downundermike said:

They are chasing him because he just shot somebody.  Find me a video of the first person he shot that shows any reason for the shooting.  I can not find one.

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:48 AM, Mike030270 said:

I haven't seen any video of the first shooting. There's video of shortly before and shortly after but there's cars in the way in one video and a bad quality video for the other one with him running away saying he killed someone

The video where he's falling and it looks like he's defending himself was because of the result of him shooting someone earlier and people going after him for that.

It's possible that the first shooting was self defense. It's also possible that it wasn't. He was running. Someone threw a grocery bag towards him(didn't hit him). Why was there people running after him in the first incident? Did he do something before that as well? Was it because he had an illegal gun?

I have a feeling there's video of the actual first shooting that just hasn't been leaked yet.

Kind of offtopic but it's great that phones have video recording nowadays.

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:54 AM, JohnSnowsHair said:

Of course anonymous tips can be acted upon, and they can be important in breaking certain cases. But they require reasonable suspicion of a crime, and often the tip requires inside information about a crime happen or being imminent.

The informant has to give police enough detail to meet "reasonable suspicion" of a crime. 

Does "several vehicles with out of state plates meeting in a remote lot" rise to "reasonable suspicion of a crime?" Because if it does not, and I certainly cannot believe it does, then the tip alone is no basis for police to stop the vehicles unless they were committing a crime. 

They watched the vehicles, which is fine, but then when they stopped at a gas station to fill up fuel cans they decided this was "reasonable suspicion" of a crime. Really? Mmk. 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:58 AM, bobeph said:

Scenario:  Man walking dog sees drug deal in car and approaches cop eating donut in his car.....

Man:  Hey, just saw a drug deal in that car

Cop: Thanks for the tip

*cop rolls up, sees illegal activity, calls for backup and starts arresting people*
 

John Snow: *flying out of the tree like where he was just licking a poster of Biden’s chimphole*.....HEY PIG!  YOU CANT DO THAT!  YOU ARE KIDNAPPING THEM!  SOMEBODY CALL RIOT KITCHEN!!

 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:59 AM, downundermike said:

You are correct.  I do not like the fact you are giving a pass to a 17 year old illegally open carrying in the state of Wisconsin ( which the Kenosha police chief confirmed in his press conference ) who by all reports did not have a valid Illinios FOID card to own that gun.

If that kid had not committed the first two crimes, he would not be there and we would not be talking about this.

You also have an agenda.  Your agenda is armed citizens should take to the streets and shoot people for committing non capital crimes.

 

On 8/28/2020 at 11:11 AM, JohnSnowsHair said:

The first victim appears to have been taunting some of the counter protesters prior to the incident. He was agitated.

Two people were "chasing", but one was a reporter - Richard McGinnis - for the Daily Caller who had been interviewing Rittenhouse previously:

So there was only one person chasing Rittenhouse who he would see as a "threat" - Rosenbaum. From a report on the criminal complaint:

Rittenhouse flees, and people start to chase him (as he had just shot someone).

Anthony Huber, the skateboarder and second person killed, tries to subdue Rittenhouse with his board and is shot in the chest. The 3rd shooting victim - Gaige Grosskreutz - was coming up as this unfolded, and raised his hands in the air and started to back away. Rittenhouse takes a shot at him and hits him in the arm; Grosskreutz flees yelling for a medic.

That's about the closest we apparently have. McGinnis may be his best shot at not getting significant jail time. What happened between Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse is going to paint much of the story for the jury, and McGinnis seems to have been in position to tell that story. There is video of Rosenbaum being agitated previously, and why he - unarmed - began to chase Rittenhouse and his AR-15 is pretty key here. 

That was from just like 2 pages  I mixed in some of the funny ones that made me laugh.  It's no wonder some of those clowns don't post in here anymore - they couldn't have been any more wrong if they'd tried  

  

On 8/28/2020 at 11:39 AM, JohnSnowsHair said:

That isn't outlined in the police bulletin. I would think if they had something more reliable than "out of state license plates parked in a lot" from a tip they would have at least mentioned that.

I'm only going by what they've conveyed. To me, it doesn't seem like quite enough for police to be stopping and searching a vehicle. That's my only point. 

I'm not defending "riot kitchen" or whatever the hell they are, I only posted their tweet because it showed video of the van in question. 

What I'm saying is that if we're supposed to be a nation of law and order, we should be holding ourselves accountable as such. It makes me rather uncomfortable that a tip about "cars with out of state license plates" comes in, and that justifies a surveillance of vehicles, which ends in a stop and search of vehicles whose occupants have not visibly participated in any behavior that rises to reasonable suspicion IMHO.

 

On 8/29/2020 at 3:21 PM, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yeah that was discussed earlier. Rosenbaum was definitely trying to agitate. I don't think anyone has claimed Rittenhouse was the provocateur.

The question really is whether or not Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and grabbing his weapon is enough to justify a self defense claim.

I think it'll be hard to get a jury to agree one way or the other on that honestly. 

I also don't think that kid should have been there, but that's besides the point.

 

On 8/30/2020 at 12:34 PM, JohnSnowsHair said:

We have no idea what transpired between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum immediately before Rittenhouse began running and being chased.

Rosenbaum was also clearly looking to agitate. There's no reason to believe Rittenhouse was thus far, but there were people there who know. I want to hear their stories.

 

On 8/30/2020 at 6:03 PM, JohnSnowsHair said:

How about not creating a strawman?

Huber saw a guy running with a gun, and people are saying he was a shooter. His reaction, with only a skateboard, is to go after the shooter - presumably to stop additional shooting maybe? 

I know it's hard for some of you to find nuance, but if there are boogeymen in this story it's not Huber, at least not based on his actions. From his perspective there was an active shooter running around with an AR-15. Irrespective of your feelings on Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse, or the protests in general, I think it's pretty hard to paint Huber's actions within that moment, knowing what he knew, as wrong. 

 

On 8/30/2020 at 6:06 PM, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

After he shot Rosenbaum, Richard McGinnis - the DailyCaller reporter who was following Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum just before the latter was shot - was trying to render aid to Rosenbaum. 

McGinnis gave a statement that after shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse circled around the vehicle and I guess inquired about how he was. 

I think Rittenhouse got way out of his depth really quickly here. I don't think he came there with some idea to shoot someone, but he got some big (and stupid) ideas pumped into his head about being a militiaman or something and got hit with the reality of the situation quickly.

This is why it was completely stupid for a bunch of "militiamen" to just show up acting like they could, without proper training, play policeman for a day in a highly volatile environment. 

 

On 8/30/2020 at 7:54 PM, JohnSnowsHair said:

It doesn't justify the killing to be sure. But between his history and the videos of Rosenbaum that evening antagonizing and agitating it makes building a case painting Rosenbaum as a relentless aggressor giving Rittenhouse no choice that much easier. 

So it's relevant, if the topic is whether a jury would find Rittenhouse not guilty for reasons of self defense.

 

Rather than cherry-picking, how about showing the totality of what was being discussed about a situation that was being discussed before additional information was coming to light?

44 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

and you're still too stupid to understand what I was objecting to.

to you, due process = "you love riot kitchen LOL DERP!" 

Your argument completely ignores the fact that police witnessed them engaging in suspicious activity and likely had knowledge of what Riot Kitchen is/was. Face it dude, you went all-in on one of the most retarded media-contrived narratives I've ever seen because you're a hardcore leftist. There's really no other way of putting it. And even after about a year and a half to marinate on the subject, you're still as fired up as ever. It's awesome. It's the content I come here for. Thank you. I mean that.

 

29 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was from just like 2 pages  I mixed in some of the funny ones that made me laugh.  It's no wonder some of those clowns don't post in here anymore - they couldn't have been any more wrong if they'd tried  

I completely forgot about @Phillyterp85 having a meltdown that police didn't shoot Rittenhouse. What an amazing thread.    

11 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Your argument completely ignores the fact that police witnessed them engaging in suspicious activity and likely had knowledge of what Riot Kitchen is/was. Face it dude, you went all-in on one of the most retarded media-contrived narratives I've ever seen because you're a hardcore leftist. There's really no other way of putting it. And even after about a year and a half to marinate on the subject, you're still as fired up as ever. It's awesome. It's the content I come here for. Thank you. I mean that.

 

what "suspicious activity?" please, illuminate me. 

they were filling gas cans. is that suspicious? I dunno, seems pretty normal to me. 

based on the police bulletin, they got a tip that out of state vehicles were parked in a parking lot.

they followed them to a gas station, where they were filling gas cans.

that's enough for police to detain? I dunno, seems a bit short of what the constitution would say. apparently Scalia is a 'hardcore leftist' because he agreed with me that an anonymous tip isn't enough for police to pull someone over. 

but keep going on, please. you're still an idiot, and your willful ignorance doesn't change that.