Two years after an attacker shot five volunteers before a Black Lives Matter march in Portland, Oregon, killing a 60-year-old woman and leaving one of her young friends paralyzed, a new visual investigation of the attack reveals that the assailant tried to provoke a stand-your-ground situation, daring three women to fight him, before suddenly opening fire when they refused.
Because ACAB.
the assailant tried to provoke a stand-your-ground situation, daring three women to fight him, before suddenly opening fire when they refused.
Ah so unlike Rittenhouse he couldn’t goad his victims into playing along.
The accumulated evidence flatly contradicts what Portland’s police chief told the public and city council staff in the days after the attack: that the gunman, 43-year-old Ben Smith, had opened fire only after he had been confronted by “armed protesters”.
That false characterization of the unarmed victims as aggressors, which was repeated in dozens of local and national news reports, remains uncorrected on the website of the Portland police bureau (PPB) even today,
Look at that, a story involving police lies! During the BLM protests no less?! Who else is as surprised as I am??! (Just kidding, everyone is just as surprised as I am, which is to say not surprised.)
Will they be surprised when the summer of 2020 happens again in another decade or two, or will they finally put it together that they had an unheeded message sent to them after King, then again after Floyd?
Ah so unlike Rittenhouse he couldn’t goad his victims into playing along.
Interesting. How, exactly, did Rittenhouse “goad” Rosenbaum, or anyone?
I recall the prosecutor… “Vigorously” making his case, (to the point that any conviction would have more likely been ruled a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct), and I don’t seem to recall even that over-the-line prosecutor arguing that any of the people killed or injured by Rittenhouse were “goaded” into action.
Hey man how many times have we both had this argument with someone? Probably more than once. Some version (I say that because I’ve seen slightly different nuance in other summaries but can’t be bothered at the moment) of the summary from the prosecution’s closing argument is more or less what I think happened: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/15/us/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-wisconsin-national-guard/index.html
I believe Rittenhouse went there looking for exactly what he made sure he found. A reason to use his shiny new gun on those antifa/blm/liberal “rioters” that Fox News et al insisted were burning cities to the ground all across the US. He succeeded in doing so, in circumstances that would later be ruled as legal.
You clearly disagree, and that’s A-OK. But I’m not interested in changing your mind, and you aren’t going to change mine, so unless someone else feels like having this argument with you, I suggest you don’t waste the time typing one up.
Lumping together violent, opportunistic criminals like Rosenbaum with BLM is something I would expect of the right. Not everyone who shows up to a protest shares the cause. Some are there just to pick up new home furnishings. Some are there to watch the world burn.
The prosecutor’s case failed because it is nothing but a compelling narrative, contradicted by hours of video evidence. You didn’t watch much, if any of that video evidence. I did, and the jury did. Neither of us found the prosecutor’s case particularly compelling.
Lumping together violent, opportunistic criminals like Rosenbaum with BLM is something I would expect of the right. Not everyone who shows up to a protest shares the cause
LOL if I ever do that (vs portraying the view Rittenhouse would have been fed prior to his arrival) I hope someone calls me out on it.
You didn’t watch much, if any of that video evidence. I did, and the jury did.
The jury saw the video that was allowed to be shown. Don’t believe this one was.
I’ve seen it. From your link:
“It looks like one of them has a weapon,” says the person prosecutors identify as Rittenhouse, but who was not actually seen in the video.
“Brah, I wish I had my f—ing AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them,” says the same person in the video used in the filing.
The presence of the weapon means this was not shoplifting. This was armed robbery. He witnessed an armed robbery in progress.
An armed robbery in progress is 1. Reasonably considered to be a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm to every person within range of the criminal’s weapon. No lesser amount of force could reliably stop that threat, so lethal force was also 6. necessary for that threat to be stopped before the criminal wanted it to stop.
Are you aware of the criteria for “defense of others”? These armed robbers provided all 6 of the criteria necessary for anyone to fire on them until the threat they posed had ended.
That’s not vigilantism. That video demonstrates he had a solid understanding of the laws governing use of lethal force in defense of self and others.
Welp, as I said you aren’t going to change my mind, and I’m not interested in changing yours. I’ve already taken this discussion further than I would have liked, so good day to you, Sir or Madam.
It’s clear that one of us doesn’t understand self defense.
I think that everyone should be taught the laws governing the use of force, in high school, before anyone is old enough to legally acquire a firearm.
Everyone. Not just gun owners. I think everyone needs a consistent understanding, because there are obviously some major misconceptions in the public’s current knowledge if half the general public thinks he’s a murderer and half think he’s completely exonerated.
Some show up with guns hoping for an opportunity to get away with murder, but those are just human lives, why care about them more than the precious home furnishings?
Wow you actually wasted time typing up a response
A true mystery.
I’ll never forget how Americans turned on Portland protesters.
Remember when the hot take was that it was all their fault for having bad branding?
The reason there was a protest is because they do that sorta thing
I was surprised there’s still BLM marches but this happened two years ago
The event happened two years ago, but the current article is calling out police lies related to that shooting which are still on the books.
That false characterization of the unarmed victims as aggressors, which was repeated in dozens of local and national news reports, remains uncorrected on the website of the Portland police bureau (PPB) even today,
Yes I was just talking about the mentioned march
Because the gunman got to do what they wake up every morning hoping they get the chance to?
The 911 dude told the pigs it was at an “anti police rally”…
I mean, technically it was? But so what? That’s legal.
It speaks volumes to their attitude.
They wouldnt let the ambulances in before they showed up acting hostile. Spun it to the national media as if they were asking for it, etc.
And these protest were about the police racist gross misuse of their power and authority. Murder is not an acceptable form of justice.
Sure, many people have become anti police, but largely only because of the police own horrific actions. So they’re whining, and playing the victim card. You know, more behavior that justifies people being sick of the police
Absolutely. My point was that it shouldn’t matter to the police whether or not they were anti-police because they should be doing their job regardless.
Of course, they don’t because they’re pigs, but anti-police protesters should not be treated any worse by police because of that.
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
I remember during the first major BLM protests while Trump was president. Protestors, beaten and shot. Journalists and reporters, beaten and shot.
And Americans point fingers across borders claiming every country but their own is authoritarian. Fucking pieces of shit.
Fuck the police.
