2 Dead, 1 Gunman Arrested In Kenosha Riots, As Family of Jacob Blake Calls for Calm

A 17-year-old Illinois teen has been charged with first-degree intentional homicide.


The mother of Jacob Blake, the man who was shot in the back by Kenosha police on Sunday, has called for an end to the rioting that broke out in the aftermath her son's shooting, which has since left two people dead.

"My family and I are very hurt. And quite frankly disgusted," Julia Jackson, Blake's mother, said in an interview with CNN Tuesday. "And as his mother, please don't burn up property and cause havoc and tear your own homes down in my son's name. You shouldn't do it."

Blake is, according to his father, paralyzed from the waist down.

The video of his shooting prompted riots in the 100,000-person city of Kenosha, where businesses and vehicles have been torched. The city has declared an 8 p.m. curfew and 100 members of the Wisconsin National Guard have been deployed to the city.

Two people were fatally shot Tuesday night, according to a statement from the Kenosha Police Department.

Before the shooting incident, police, using tear gas, had pushed demonstrators out of a park in front of the Kenosha Courthouse.

Some of the crowd had reassembled at a nearby gas station where they got into repeated verbal arguments with armed men who said they were there to protect businesses from vandalism, reports The New York Times. A video of the incident shows a person with a rifle being chased down a street by a crowd of people.

One man can be seen taking a swing at the back of the gunman's head. He later falls to the ground and is set upon by several members of the crowd, and can be seen shooting at least two of them. The shooter is then seen walking toward armored police vehicles.

Several bystanders in video of the incident say that the gunman was being chased after already shooting someone, reports NPR. The alleged shooter, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse of Antioch, Illinois, was arrested in Illinois and charged with first-degree intentional homicide.

The Daily Beast reports that Rittenhouse was an active supporter of Blue Lives Matter and pro-police causes on Facebook. An interview posted to Twitter by Daily Caller videographer Richard McGinnis shows Rittenhouse stating that he was there to protect businesses and that he was carrying a rifle and medical kit.

Fellow vigilantes claimed not to know Rittenhouse when confronted by demonstrators after the shooting, saying they only referred to him as "medic."

Many of the details surrounding last night's shooting incident remain murky. Wisconsin state police are in charge of the investigation, reports The New York Times. 

NEXT: The Politics of Guns Are Changing. Politicians Need To Catch Up.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sounds like self defense. Also love how reason keeps taking the side of the rioters burners and looters.

    1. “ Several bystanders in video of the incident say that the gunman was being chased after already shooting someone...”

      “ Many of the details surrounding last night's shooting incident remain murky.”

      The blog post was a neutral recounting if the news stories.

      1. So then we need to know why he shot the first person. Was that person threatening him or did he just do it to be an a-hole?

        1. Video shows him being chased and threatened (by the first person), although the video quality is a bit lower. Later in the comments section someone has posted it.

          1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h…PFc someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…,,,,,,,,,► Click here

        2. Personally, I try never to form an opinion of sensational events like this until at least a week after the event happened. I’ve seen too many news stories where the initial reporting is way off, and new details keep trickling in.

          1. Yet you've done it twice today. Coked up trump Jr. And now imprisoned 17 year old here.

            1. I very explicitly said that I don't know about Trump, Jr. And for the 17-year-old all I expressed was sympathy for his f'ing up his life.

          2. Example of more facts tricking in: just saw a news story that 17 year olds are not allowed to openly carry a weapon in Wisconsin, so he had the weapon there illegally.

            1. So... you took the trust of the news media instead of just looking up the public open carry laws in Wisconsin? Hint... news was wrong.

              1. Hint: He’s not even from Wisconsin, he’s from Illinois. I highly doubt Wisconsin let’s a teenager from Illinois open carry.

                1. He’s not even from Wisconsin, he’s from Illinois

                  And you think that's relevant...how, exactly?

                  I highly doubt Wisconsin let’s a teenager from Illinois open carry.

                  Based on what, other than your fundamental ignorance of the applicable law?

              2. As this article explains, it is a complex question that will no doubt be argued in court:


                When you say, “Just go read the WI gun laws yourself.” it is clearly another JesseAz bluff. First of all, if you had looked into it, you would have known that it requires looking into Wisconsin and Illinois laws.

                1. First of all, if you had looked into it, you would have known that it requires looking into Wisconsin and Illinois laws.

                  You're an idiot. Illinois law is utterly irrelevant to the question of possession in Wisconsin. And if you'd bothered to actually read the applicable WI statutes you would have found (assuming your reading comprehension skills exceed those of the average potato) that 948.60 (the "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18") statute contains a provision that exempts possession of long guns (rifles and shotguns) by those under 18 so long as they are not in violation of 941.28 (which prohibits sawed-off shotguns and short-barreled rifles) and not out of compliance with two hunting subsections on hunting, neither of which applied to the situation.

        3. Yeah, that's the question. The later shootings were clearly self defense. It seems very likely that the first one was too, he was clearly being chased before it happened. But the video I've seen doesn't capture the actual shooting and what immediately preceded it.

    2. This is what Trump loves. This is the only thing he has accomplished in 4 years, getting Americans to hate each other to the point of fomenting a civil war and killing each other, and you love that egotistical idiot?

      1. Yeah it is all Trump's fault, I mean Obama didn't accuse half the country of being bitter klinger's and the Democrats and the Left hasn't been calling white people, especially white conservatives, racists for 3 decades and Hillary never said that half the country was a basketful of deplorables, and they haven't written volumes on how white conservatives, especially hetro-cis Christian males need to just disappear, or worse. They didn't label anyone associated with the very real peaceful protests tea baggers and racists and anyone who wasn't white in the movement, Uncle Tom. No, it is all Trump's fault. Good take there.

        1. It isn’t ALL Trump’s fault, but Trump has absolutely been whipping up divisiveness in the country.

          Obama and others did, too, and passive-aggressively. I disagree with people her who have said it is somehow better that Trump promotes divisiveness and unrest more openly. Either is bad.

          1. So hypocritical

          2. And I've said since 2015, this is as much McCain and Romney's fault, because they never pushed back. Trump is the result. I wish he wasn't but it's my assessment.

          3. It isn’t ALL Trump’s fault, but Trump has absolutely been whipping up divisiveness in the country.

            For decades the Dems only social program is hate in service of their scapegoating, so it's idiotic to think anyone else is materially at fault.

            Supposedly moderate Joe Biden claimed Mitt Romney Republicans wanted to put blacks "back in chains" returning them to slavery. None of the people whining about Trump's divisiveness said a word then or pointed it out when he ran for President. They are only interested in criticizing Trump, they have no interest in less divisiveness.

        2. I mean Obama didn’t accuse half the country of being bitter klinger’s

          He didn't.

          and the Democrats and the Left hasn’t been calling white people, especially white conservatives, racists for 3 decades

          They haven't. Some people have recklessly thrown around the accusation of racism, sure. These claims are of course magnified by right-wing media (which you totally don't watch) to represent the viewpoint of The Entire Left, which you dutifully repeat here.

          and Hillary never said that half the country was a basketful of deplorables,

          She didn't.

          and they haven’t written volumes on how white conservatives, especially hetro-cis Christian males need to just disappear, or worse.

          If by "volumes" you mean "a few op-eds and a few social media posts", then yeah, a few people have. Here is a news flash: most Democrats are hetero cis Christians too.

          They didn’t label anyone associated with the very real peaceful protests tea baggers and racists and anyone who wasn’t white in the movement, Uncle Tom.

          A lot of people snickered at the Tea Party, sure. Quite honestly there was a lot to snicker at though. I actually went to a few Tea Party events myself. It was a bunch of old folks railing about Agenda 21 and other insane conspiracy theories.

          So yeah Trump is the answer to your projected victimhood complex from the last 10 years. Got it.

          1. You're a joke, chemjeff.

          2. [and the Democrats and the Left hasn’t been calling white people, especially white conservatives, racists for 3 decades]

            They haven’t.

            True, it's been 4 decades.

          3. Once again unwilling to condemn your own sides evil and blame everything on everyone else. You just can't help othering people can you?

      2. Leftists are consumed by hatred and bigotry, to the point of outright psychosis... but it's Trump's fault.

        Personal responsibility is anathema to leftism

        1. It doesn’t appear to be a leftist that gave in to hatred and shot people on this one. We don’t know all the details, of course, but at first glance it was a right-winger who shot two people.

          1. Watch the fucking videos, imbecile

            1. I will. Haven't had the chance yet.

              1. Perhaps watching the actual occurrence before providing a “gave into hatred” pronouncement would be a useful process change for you.

              2. So you've spent over 6 hours commenting on these threads based on timestamps and can't be bothered to first watch the videos? Must be why you also blindly took the medias word on open carryall regarding long guns in Wisconsin instead of taking 5 minutes to look it up.

                All of this ignorance after claiming you wait to see what the facts are... yet each fact you've had so far here has been wrong.

                Good work chipper.

                1. Tactical ignorance is a key component for leftists.

          2. yeah and he did it in self defense because some leftists attacked him.

          3. amd yuor base line conclusion after knowing almost NONE of the FATS of the case have his motive as "hatred". Right....

            From the vid I saw, he was running to get clear of trouble in one place trouble followed him, taking swipes at him ashe ran, eventually grounding him at which point, faced with an angry mob screaming and swinging at him he fired.. self defense at that ppiont. The "intentional homicide" but just might be from an earlier incident, perhaps even that which he was fleeing, we don't know. And YOU don't either. What would YOU do if YOU were chased by an angry mob throwingthings, hitting, bashing, knocking down? Sit there and take it? Go Code Brown and sit there calmly stinking?

            Good job the young man was not a VERY skilled marskman and tactical shooter. There'd have been more than two hit, until they made informed decisions to go find something else to vent their hatred upon.

      3. Obama had 8 years to fix police departments across America. He even supposedly did some community organizing in Chicago, which still seems like one of the worst cities for crime. And Democrats have been running most of these cities for 50 years or so.

      4. Quick! Say something nice about Trump. Doesn't need to be much.

        I can say something nice about Biden. He seems friendly and charming, and I actually like some of his jokes.

        Now you go.

        1. Trump is a completely reprehensible person. There isn’t anything positive to say about him.

          1. Lol

            So broken

          2. completely neutral.

        2. I honestly have a hard time finding anything positive to say about Trump to be honest. I was going to say "I'm sure he loves his children" but I'm not even sure that is true. I mean, look at how he treated his own sister who wrote a book critical of him. If his children did the same thing, I have little doubt that they would get the same treatment. So his love is very conditional I think. His wife is obviously disposable eye candy, so I can't say that I think he sincerely loves his wife either. He's a fat narcissistic ignorant demagogic clown. He is a con-man who made his money based far more on an *image* of being successful, rather than actually being successful in his professed line of work. And what money he did make, he left a lot of bankruptcy and stiffed donors and contractors in his wake, along with getting a huge assist from his rich daddy. I don't even think he loves America *as it actually is*, I think he loves America as he would like it to be, which is this nostalgic 1980's-esque era fake America that is strong and powerful and successful and everyone's a patriot and everyone's happy and everyone loves Reagan, but substitute Trump for Reagan. At least with all of the other politicians, no matter how scummy they might be in their personal lives or how terrible their policy ideas might be, you could at least find one positive redeeming character about them. I am not sure that there is one about Trump. Not even one.

          1. Your opinion is roughly as valuable as the dead pedophile's

          2. And he's still better for America than any Democrat. It's amazing that simply not detesting America and trying to destroy it economically is sufficient to outweigh all that.

      5. Might as well keep it real.
        This has been a long time coming, this country isn't big enough for the both of us. I'm tired of appeasing these left wing loons.

      6. "This is what Trump loves. This is the only thing he has accomplished in 4 years, getting Americans to hate each other to the point of fomenting a civil war and killing each other, and you love that egotistical idiot?"

        This post is just so much left-wing gaslighting...

      7. Yeah, I was especially incensed at how he instigated a bunch of Marxist shitheads into rioting and looting major cities. What an asshole.

    3. Well, that depends pretty much solely on his race and the race of his "victims" it seems these days.

      1. Both white.

        1. Stalemate!

          Oh wait, I didn't factor in the "fascism" angle.

          STRING HIM UP!!!!

    4. Totally self defense. Here's video showing everything.

      1. I didn't catch the first time I saw it that the guy shot in the arm had a handgun.

        1. Yes. He was very, very lucky not to be dead. The guy who used the skateboard as a weapon was not so lucky. Jackasses.

      2. I just spent 11 minutes watching the video that shows everything. Where is the evidence of self defense in a shaky video of people running around shooting guns?

        1. He must be guilty because he supports Trump and the Police?

        2. 2:45 shooter being chased, has molotov cocktail thrown at him, chased, shooting.

        3. Where is the evidence of self defense in a shaky video of people running around shooting guns?

          It's the part where each of the people shot attacked the person with the gun.

        4. Try watching all of the available videos again, only this time try pulling your head out of your rectum first. That will make it much easier to see what it going on.

      3. Hope all of the commenters here that think some shaky video proves that he is or isn't guilty never serve on a jury.

        1. So the evidence is inconclusive in your opinion. Doesn't that create reasonable doubt, barring other evidence to the contrary? Seems like it would mean there isn't reliable evidence to convict, doesn't it?

          1. If you're making an affirmative defense, such as claiming self-defense, that's a different evidentiary standard. In this case, there's not much doubt that he actually did shoot three people and killed two of them.

            You don't have to prove it wasn't self-defense "Beyond a reasonable doubt," it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. In that case, it varies by jurisdiction, but he'd likely need a preponderance of the evidence to prove it was self-defense.

            1. there’s not much doubt that he actually did shoot three people and killed two of them.

              There's also not much doubt that in both cases he's being pursued by mobs that he's attempting to escape from, and being assaulted (with potentially deadly force in the 2nd video) after he is cornered/falls down, and after someone in the mob popped of a gun shot in the first video. There's also not much doubt that the only people he is seen shooting at are his attackers, and he is seen NOT shooting at others, even though he has more than enough targets an opportunities.

        2. You're blind.

          1. Not blind, willfully ignorant. Denying the obvious works around the drum circle because the audience is entirely composed of people whose conclusions are determined by politics. In the real world it doesn't work as well, it just reveals the speaker is not a serious person.

    5. Reason is not, as far as I can tell, "taking the side" of the rioters. Underneath this article was an opinion piece titled: "The Senseless Destruction of Property in Kenosha, Minneapolis, and Elsewhere Is Not Advancing Justice."

      1. You missed the media's attempt to reverse their narrative

      2. There is this thing called timing.

        A day later and a dollar short isn't how you establish credibility.

        This is obvious attempts at narrative shaping based on bad polling numbers.

    6. "Vigilantes."

      Britschgj is such a fuckstick.

      1. This. They might be “militia” (maybe) but they aren’t vigilantes.

      2. Isn't a vigilante just a person who isn't police but takes on some of the roles usually performed by police?

        1. Isn’t a vigilante just a person who isn’t police but takes on some of the roles usually performed by police?

          No. Do you honestly not know how to use a dictionary?

  2. 2 Dead, 1 Gunman Arrested In Kenosha Riots

    We should all be grateful that there's no rioting in any other cities.

    1. Sad that two people are dead and some 17-year-old kid has probably thrown away his life for years of prison.

      1. I thought you were trying to be neutral. But you've already convicted him.

        1. He's already been convicted, regardless of the circumstances. The charge is 1st degree. You think if he gets nailed for anything less, we won't have more riots?

          1. Whether we have more riots is independent of whether he is found guilty. He's very likely to be found not guilty due to self defense, then we'll likely have more riots.

          2. You think if he gets nailed for anything less, we won’t have more riots?

            Since we were already having "more riots" before this incident (including in response to a black man committing suicide), I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that convicting an innocent kid...who has nothing at all to do with the excuses used for the rioting in the first place...would somehow prevent...more rioting.

        2. You are going to go with that. I was clearly just expressing sympathy for the kid.

          1. Sympathy would have been wishing the best for someone who acted in self defense.

          2. Sympathy for him being locked up. So much sympathy. Instead of watching the videos and seeing he acted in self defense.. your sympathy is him being convicted without you even bothering to watch the video.

            God you're a fucking ignorant person.

      2. What 2 people are dead? Marxist don't count as people

        1. Clinger

        2. Spoken like a true NAZI brown shirt. You must be greatly saddened that you missed your era in history. You could have been Hitler's right hand man, another Himler or Goebbels selecting enemies of the state for elimination.

          1. Uhm, study history. What Antifa and BLM is doing is straight out of the Brownshirts manuals. Including using force to make people respond the way they want (see the video of them harassing a diner for not raising her fist) silencing political opponents (see cancel culture). Hell, even their economic model is textbook fascism.

            1. The shame march through D.C. yesterday is a page right form the Mao revolution.

              1. Missed that one.

            2. Do Marxists count as people, or not? It was a simple question.

              They're people and they don't deserve to be murdered based on their beliefs.

              Just like you are a person and don't deserve to be murdered based on your beliefs.

              Evidently around here, this is a difficult position to take.

              1. They weren't murdered for their views, other than their views that chasing an armed kid won't get you shot. The video from the first shooting also show they chased the kid who kept trying to extricate himself and warned them he was eventually cornered. Fired a warning shot (this is actually how we are taught to do it in crowd control in the Army, BTW, warn, then aim your weapon and warn again, lock and load and warn again, fire a warning shot and warn again, and then use lethal force). He only fired the lethal shot after the man kept approaching him.

              2. They weren't murdered for their beliefs. They were killed because they attacked a man with a gun.

              3. They’re people and they don’t deserve to be murdered based on their beliefs.

                Well then it's a good thing that none of them were murdered, let along being murdered for their beliefs. Three of them were shot (and two killed), however, for deciding that it was a good idea to join (or head up) a mob, chase a kid who was just trying to get away from them and then assault him, including with potentially deadly force.

            3. soldiermedic76, how does Kuckland (who I think is just Tulpa) know that the two people who died are Marxists? And if they are Marxists, how do we know they are serious Marxists who use force to make people respond the way they want, and not just some mixed-up person? And, if they are, are you saying that two of your fellow Americans/human beings deserve to be dead because of their political beliefs?

              1. Lol
                This has to be parody

                1. So, you have nothing. Make a stab at answering my questions before you say I'm a parody.

                  1. Nardz, at least as Internet Warrior, would have no problem murdering you, or me, or anyone else whom he thought was to the left of Ted Cruz.

                    I imagine though that real-life Nardz is far more circumspect in his use of bullets.

                    1. Indeed.

                      Stating truth is "violence" to leftist idiots like you.
                      But give me cause, and I'd happily end your existence.

                      Your life has no value, at best, and honestly takes value off the table.

                      Marxism is shown by their support of BLM, their destruction of private property, and their history of child rape.
                      These are your people, white knight.
                      May you join them in meeting a painful end soon

                2. It is basic sophistry. Just act dumb until people get tired of you. It is how the Jeff's of the world argue.

                  It is also why they like post modernism. You can't ever be wrong if there are no objective truths.

              2. It's a central tenant of Marxism to use violence to over throw the system. Marx stated as much in his writings, multiple times.

                1. plus every attempt at Marxism in history. But Jeff is ignorant of basic facts.

                2. That's called a logical fallacy.

                  Marx advocated violent revolution
                  Bob advocates violent revolution
                  Therfore Bob is a Marxist

                  Hopefully you can see the fallacy from this simple example.

                  1. Not what I argued. WK asked if they are marxist how do we know they will use? I was answering that force is a central tenet of Marxism. Once again you are arguing the point you want rather than the point I actually made.

                  2. It is almost pathological for you. You don't argue what people actually write but what you think they mean. And you almost always get it wrong, because you don't engage people with intellectual honesty. Instead if they are to your right, you automatically assume they are narrow minded, bigots and less intelligent than you.

              3. how do we know they are serious Marxists who use force to make people respond the way they want

                I'm not sure about the Marxists part, but their willingness to use force against people they don't like is pretty evident.

        3. And you know that the two dead people are Marxists how?

      3. It's not sad, they got what they deserved.

        And have you not seen any of the numerous videos?
        Charges will be dropped within a month

        1. cops will often charge a person who is innocent to let things cool down and to even protect the person from mobs, then release later after things cool down. This happened to a relative of mine years ago the judge said we are keeping him for his own safety. I hope thats the case here

          1. Killing two people and he is innocent, really? Who did he shoot before the crowd chased him down? Did the owner of the business ask him to bring an assault rifle and protect his business? Was the owner there protecting the business and did he ask this group of vigilantes to join him and come protect his business or did a group of yahoos decide to go out and have an excuse to shoot a real human being rather than a paper target. Were these yahoos sober or did they meet up ahead of time and had a few beers?

            The others in the vigilantes claim they did not know him and referred to him as Medic. So how did this group coordinate and decide to meet up there to supposedly protect a business, how did they communicate with him if they did not know who he was? And if they did not know who he was, how did this brainless kid find the group protecting the business.

            I own guns, however, when you go out in a volatile situation like that and bring guns, you are asking for trouble, someone is bound to get killed and most often it is an innocent person. This is why we have the police.

            1. But in the case of the last three months of riots in Portland and Seattle, and then more recently in Wisconsin and elsewhere, the police have largely stood down, at the behest of state and local governments. So, unfortunately, we don't have the police. And Americans have every right to defend themselves and their property from violent mobs.

            2. Yeah don't you dare protect private property or your neighbors because we must allow the riots to continue. And don't even think about defending yourself.

            3. "This is why we have the police."

              Really? The cops aren't there, idiot. Largely because of whining from people like you about what the cops have done. Whining to their superiors, which leads said superiors to threaten to arrest the cops if they do their jobs and restore order.

              When you take away police, hapless amateurs like this 17 year old are what you get. And they're going to make mistakes. Still, this kid was actually trying to do something to help people keep their property intact. With people like you second-guessing everything he did, yet not lifting a finger to help.

              Maybe encouraging rioters isn't such a great idea?

              1. This is why we have the police. No I really didn't mean defund the police last week.

              2. It says right in the story that cops were there. Right after be shot the two people be walked over to police cars.

                1. They were there because he called them after he shot the first person.

                  1. He called the police, which is when the mob started chasing him. Then the idiot who drew down with a skateboard got shot in the torso while on top of the man with the rifle, who had been knocked to the ground.

                    The second man initially ran up, but then raised his hands and was not shot. That joker then dropped his hands, drew a pistol whereupon had his bicep blown to smithereens. All of this is quite visible on video.

                    This is all self-defense, whether politics will allow it to be called that or not.

                2. What is also 'right there's in the videos is that he was attempting to flee before shooting his pursuit.

                  That ain't murder.

                  1. WK is showing sympathy for the kid by wishing him many years in jail. Can't even bother with watching the videos... but WK feels bad for him.

            4. Who did he shoot before the crowd chased him down? No word on that, or the circumstances. So judgment should be reserved for later, when all the facts are in.

              1. Newer video shows he was confronted by an angry man. The kid warned him off, retreated. The man chased him (the first one shot) and threw a glass bottle at him. The kid turned and warned him again. And retreated. This happened two more times before the kid popped him in the head. The guy was also supposedly daring the kid to shoot him as he chased him.

                1. Yikes.

                  You never dare someone to shoot or stab you. I know someone who did. She got stabbed.

                  1. His actions just happened to be exactly how I was taught in base defense course in the Army to deal with crowds. You give a verbal warning, then you aim your rifle, but don't chamber a round and warn then again, then you chamber a round and warn them again, then you fire a warning shot and warn them, and then you use lethal force. Not sure if he meant to do this, but as a vet, I am impressed.

                    1. Damn good discipline. At 17 I am not certain I would have been that disciplined.

                    2. You were a solider. This was a 17 year old kid. Why was he even there? It was a stupid and looking for trouble.

                    3. White knight rides in with the stock leftist talking point

                    4. How in the world could there be a "stock leftist talking point" to a comment soldiermedic76 made about his personal experience with Army training? Did I, like, dial an emergency liberal help line on how to respond to a personal anecdote?

                    5. I am commending him on something that takes soldiers years to learn. That is discipline.

                    6. Now WK wants to decide who is and who is not allowed to be in public. How quaint.

                    7. "Why was he even there? It was a stupid and looking for trouble."

                      Word for word NPC talking point.
                      It's like it's playing on a loop through "different" "people" across the net

            5. The police were protecting city hall with fences they put up..they were not protecting private property

            6. You may be asking for trouble by doing that. But you are still allowed to defend yourself.

            7. There's video of the first guy shot chasing the guy with the gun. Understand, the person with the gun is running away.

              The attacker finally corners him at which point the kid shoots him.

              This is why we have the police.

              It's revealing the rioters and their allies want to eliminate them then isn't it?

            8. Killing two people and he is innocent, really?

              Innocent of the charges against him, yes. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

              Who did he shoot before the crowd chased him down?

              Nobody. He was being chased by violent mobs in both cases. He didn't even fire the first shot. That was done by someone in the first mob that was chasing him. Perhaps try availing yourself of the videos available before asking more stupid questions.

              Was the owner there protecting the business and did he ask this group of vigilantes

              There were no acts of vigilantism by the group, so knock off the dishonest bullshit. And where the owner of the gas station was, or if he'd asked for protection are utterly irrelevant.

              I own guns, however

              This phrase is an amazingly accurate predictor of the stupidity that will follow it.

              someone is bound to get killed and most often it is an innocent person

              Luckily, in this case the innocent person prevailed, and the violent felons who assaulted him did not.

              This is why we have the police.

              Are you really THAT damned ignorant of what was going on in Kenosha (and several other cities) at the time?

        2. They let the Cadillac Pawn owner go in Minneapolis after holding him a week w/o bail for shooting some guy looting his shop.
          "Charges deferred"

          1. Don't get caught. Which then leads to the corollary, 'Why stop at only shooting rioters that are directly threatening you?'

            Hell of a set of incentives those naive dumbasses have given people who just want to be left alone to continue living their lives and seeking opportunity.

        3. I heard the cops first drove past him, declining to arrest him. He was picked up at home later.

          1. He approached the cops with his hands raised.

          2. Why am I not surprised that the cops turn a blind eye to right-wing vigilante 'justice'.

            1. Because it was a clean shoot, if you watch the video. Why am I not surprised you want to convict the kid because of his political leanings.

            2. You don't condemn the left mob but sure condemn a kid shooting the mob in self defense.

              1. Jeff is completely neutral!

            3. You see armed self defense as "right wing vigilante justice" because you're a fucking moron.

            4. Do you even libertarian dude?

            5. Why am I not surprised that the cops turn a blind eye to right-wing vigilante ‘justice’.

              There's so much stupidity packed into so few words there...

              First of, there was not vigilantism involved. There was an individual who tried to flee from two violent mobs, only to be forced to defend himself when, in both cases, he was unable to escape, and was violently assaulted by no fewer than three felons. He didn't even fire the first shot.

              Secondly, the cops didn't "turn a blind eye" to anything. They were headed toward where the incident had occurred, and had no idea who Kyle was.

      4. Video proves it was self defense.

        1. Yeah, looks that way.

          But you know, he shouldn't have been wearing that skirt--I mean, putting himself in that situation, yo.

        2. Reasonable doubt, at the very least. Chasing a visibly armed person being an obviously threatening act. Especially after you have already thrown something at him.

          Red shirt dude was nothing but trouble.

          1. And the guy with his arm blown off needs to be charged.

  3. My family and I are very hurt. And quite frankly disgusted...

    She's deployed the mom guilt trip thing they do.

    1. 'But please, keep the GoFundMe going. It's certainly more for this family than Jake ever brought in.'

      1. That is a deplorable thing to say.

        1. But it's the truth.

        2. The undeniable truth is always deplorable to those who cannot abide honesty.

  4. The mother of Jacob Blake, the man who was shot in the back by Kenosha police on Sunday, has called for an end to the rioting that broke out in the aftermath her son's shooting

    Shut up! We know what's best for you people!

    /White BLM Prog

  5. The alleged shooter, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse of Antioch, Illinois, was arrested in Illinois and charged with first-degree intentional homicide.

    Well, at least they got to charge someone with something.

    1. No reasonable prosecutor..........

    2. That should provide a lesson about the incentives for identifying yourself to the mob, and volunteering to turn yourself in.

      1. Yeah. I'm thinking it may behoove you to use a high-powered rifle with very soft or hollow pointed rounds, to mask ballistics, and take the shot from hundreds of yards off. From a rest, using a scoped rifle (and build your own suppressor) it wouldn't be a real hard shot and then displace. It will be difficult to identify where the shot came from and by the time they did, you'll be long gone (hell for that matter I used to be able to hit a torso sized pop-up silhouette target three out of four times from the supported and prone unsupported firing positions with iron sights with my M16A2, using shitty Army ammunition. My Bushmaster has tighter head space, a lighter trigger and I shoot quality ammunition out of it. Give me a few days on the range and I bet I can do better than that. And two years ago I hit a moving whitetail on the prairie at just a touch over 275 yards, from a standing supported position at sundown (she was to west and the sun was setting behind her) with one shot with my Model 70 .270 WSM. Drove a 130 grain Winchester silvertip through both lungs and the aortic arch.

        1. She took two leaps and head dived into the ground. She was dead before she hit the ground.

          1. My son last year just grazed a white tail buck at about 350 yards with a Savage 110E .270 winchester from a kneeling unsupported position. He held just a bit high and scraped it's back, but if he had held a few inches lower it would have been all x ring.

            1. "My son last year just grazed a white tail buck at about 350 yards with a Savage 110E .270 winchester from a kneeling unsupported position. He held just a bit high and scraped it’s back..."

              My pop, who'd killed quite a bit of deer (by necessity, as broke as they were when he grew up) always said to put the crosshairs on it for the first shot, no matter how far away you 'think' it is. Obviously not applicable for the Kestrel/LRF class, but we were broke.

              350 is out there for me and my .270. Of course I don't have a LRF or Kestrel either. Good job. The bullet will certainly do its job there if you do.

              1. 0, -8, -20. And I need to get closer if I think it's out past 400.

                1. Yeah at 400 yards, with most standard hunting rounds, your point of aim is not on fur even when zeroed a couple inches high at 100. And the drop/difference in hold from 400 to 425 might be greater than the chest of a typical white tail.

          2. That is a great feeling when that happens. When otherwise you're looking at going down a few hundred vertical feet through manzanita brush to try and bring their boned-out meat + head back to camp.

            First buck I ever shot, did much as you described. .270 Win, uphill, with a Sierra 130 grain spitzer that just about grenaded on his front shoulder, yet still got into his chest cavity. Not a fan of that bullet in that caliber. Subsequent deer taken with Partitions had much better bullet performance.

            I think he took two steps, then fell tumbling down a good 2-300 feet to the base of the hill. Dragged him maybe 60 yards to the car. Easiest recovery I've ever done. (We had just gotten out of the car, in prep to climb the ridge the deer ended up on, and go into the drainage behind that ridge. A lucky day, that made up for tons of unlucky ones.)

            People really don't realize how spacious modern warfare with rifles can be, unless they've done it. Or read about it and extrapolate from their own experiences.

            1. My first elk was with a .270 win, the same one my son now shoots. Took it out with a 150 grain sierra round nose. Punched out both shoulder and both lungs.

  6. The Daily Beast reports that Rittenhouse was an active supporter of Blue Lives Matter and pro-police causes on Facebook.

    Multiple violent felonies: totally irrelevant!

    Support police like most of the country: violent extremist!

    1. Imagine if the cops were actually deployed to help subdue the chaos instead of letting the chaos happen.

      1. But then who would arrest these violent nazis defending themselves and their property?

      2. Woah, there. I don't think the union is going to approve of anything like THAT.

  7. Before the shooting incident, police, using tear gas, had pushed demonstrators out of a park in front of the Kenosha Courthouse.

    Excellent strategy. Disperse the carnage. Spread the destruction around. That park is a top priority.

    1. What's really important about this story is that no state property was destroyed. Mission accomplished.

  8. Reason, like the rest of the media, needs to stop pretending that these pre-planned and staged terrorist attacks are spontaneous, and start shining the spotlight on the people who arrange to bus in the provocateurs and the bricks and other materials they use in the attacks.

    I suggest starting from the fact that, if you visit blacklivesmatter.org, you're directed to a page where you can contribute money to the shady, Democrat-run slush fund ActBlue. Then read the fine print. Clearly, ActBlue is designed to funnel money to terrorist ops such as BLM and Antifa. Why hasn't the federal government seized all their assets and filed a RICO case?

    1. There are probably planned protests as you refer to, but the rioting and protesting that has broken out immediately after recent incidents does seem to be spontaneous.

      1. Fully explained by the active creation of a factory to make shields, deployment of frozen water bottles, bricks being available, etc. Totally spontaneous. Shields just litter the streets where I live. Water freezes immediately.

        1. Lawyers Guild phone numbers sharpied on people's arms. Training in getting their talking points in front of anyone with an active stream.

          Yeah. Spontaneous.

      2. Riots in a city immediately after the police in that city shoot someone unnecessarily can be expected, but the mostly peaceful protesters should still be arrested and charged and tried for crimes they submit.
        That still doesn't explain day 89 of riots in Portland.

        1. Rioting in Portland needs no explanation other than, "it's a day that ends in Y."

          1. And, it’s not November yet.

      3. the rioting and protesting that has broken out immediately after recent incidents does seem to be spontaneous.

        What nonsense. It's amazing people say what they wish people to believe regardless of facts.

    2. also the fact that in Portland at least they are showing up with home made shields to deflect the pepper balls. When a bunch of people show up with shields I call that a planned insurrection. so far most shields are wood and thankfully bullets go through wood.

    3. What do you surmise are the predicate felonies necessary for a RICO prosecution? Please be specific.

  9. Too bad he didn't do the shooting in Portland, I heard the cops are standing down there. Or is that just for the looters and the rioters? If I rob a liquor store in Portland, will I be in trouble unless I also loot the liquor store and burn it to the ground afterward? I'm confused by the new rules - some people are above the law and some people are not?

    1. Just scream "BLACK LIVES MATTER, SILENCE IS VIOLENCE" while robbing the liquor store. That seems to work regardless of skin color.

    2. Seattle made sure to prosecute all of the Proud Boys.

    3. You're fine as long as you're down with the cause. So if you're low on vodka, just write BLM on a hoodie and go wild.

      1. But if I'm low on vodka, I might not be stupid enough to knock over the liquor store in the first place! Talk about a Catch-22.

  10. "Some of the crowd had reassembled at a nearby gas station where they got into repeated verbal arguments with armed men who said they were there to protect businesses from vandalism, reports The New York Times. A video of the incident shows a person with a rifle being chased down a street by a crowd of people.

    One man can be seen taking a swing at the back of the gunman's head. He later falls to the ground and is set upon by several members of the crowd, and can be seen shooting at least two of them. The shooter is then seen walking toward armored police vehicles.

    Several bystanders in video of the incident say that the gunman was being chased after already shooting someone, reports NPR."

    I'd love to believe we live in the kind of country where unarmed people run towards someone because he is shooting at them. Unfortunately, we live in a country where people often rationalize what they and others do after the fact.

    I can show you a survey taken six months after we invaded Iraq that shows a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. After all, if he wasn't behind the anthrax attack, then why would we have invaded? People rationalize.

    I'll look forward to seeing the video.

    1. He shot the whigger at the gas station first. Then the crowd chased him.

      1. We know that they chased down someone who was shooting at them because we know that he shot someone first, or is that what the crowd who chased him down said after the fact?

        1. It was clear to me watching the streams last night that he shot the whigger in a separate incident. Soon after, the mob recognized him and chased him. He didn't start shooting at the mob until he fell and they attacked.

          1. I haven't seen the video prior to him being chased, can you link it?

            1. I didn't see any good video of the first shooting.

              Here's a Youtube stream that you now have to sign in. Google's not getting my phone # but IIRC it's right about the 4:00 point.


              1. https://twitter.com/selfdeclaredref/status/1298483098347352064

                You can plainly see him run in the next video.

              2. That's what I'm talking about: the first shooting.

                The idea that a crowd of people rushed someone who was shooting at them seems like a tall tale. There are genuinely valiant Marines who aren't that brave.

                The idea that an angry mob effectively tried to lynch the guy because someone accused him of something make more sense. I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying it makes more sense.

                1. The idea that a crowd of people rushed someone who was shooting at them seems like a tall tale.

                  Nobody is claiming this.

                2. He wasn't shooting at them. He was running away. And then several men attacked him after he tripped and fell (one carrying a handgun, one swinging a skateboard, and another attempting to kick him). Then he shot them.

                  1. Again, . . .

                    The story that he was running away from a crowd of people--who were chasing him because he shot someone at a gas station--doesn't conflict with your narrative at all. I remain skeptical of that narrative.

                    If you're telling me that the crowd was chasing him down because he shot someone at a gas station, I'm telling you that it's more likely that an angry mob jumped on him because someone in the crowd accused him of something.

                    When a shooting breaks out, people generally take cover or run in the other direction--away from the shooting.


                    "Look out, he has a gun!" *bang* , doesn't generally make people run towards a shooter--for the same reason that crowds don't generally run into burning buildings. When we're talking about angry mobs, the more likely explanation is that the angry mob tried to lynch the guy--and rationalized it after the fact.

                    Angry mobs are more likely to act like angry mobs than they are to act like Medal of Honor winners charging an active shooter, right? Maybe they were acting like a bunch of heroes charging a shooter, but it's more likely that the angry mob was acting like an angry mob.

                    1. The videos are out there, Ken.
                      Your take is completely rational, but these are marxisrs lunatics.

                      Them chasing down an armed boy is actually the most terrifying thing I've seen them do.
                      They clearly have no concept of their mortality

                    2. Rational analysis does not apply: the facts really are that this man shot someone at the car dealership and started to call the police. Why he was on the phone with 911, the mob started chasing him.

                      Several mob members caught him from behind and he fell. While on the ground one man kicked at his head (was not shot), another hit him with a skateboard while on top of him; this guy was shot in the torso while the rifle was pointed upwards by the guy on his back.

                      Another man charged, and initially raised his hands with no shooting as a result. He then dropped his hands and drew a handgun. This man’s gun arm bicep was shot to bits and there is a picture of him with both the gun in hand and the bullet wound in the arm.

                      Toxicology on these people would be interesting: how do you make this many bad decisions when your life is at stake?

                    3. This is all I kept thinking as I watched all the videos - wtf are they running after a guy with a rifle for? Literally, I must be missing something.


                      Which was crazier, though? The guy who literally dared him to shoot, before chasing him in furtherance of that ultimately successful goal?

                      Orrrrr, the other two dummies who recognized him and already suspected him of shooting someone else, before deciding themselves that they should chase and attack (ask to be shot) as well?

                      It's kind of an interesting psychological thing at work here, it seems. The fascist, already in their bully/mob mindset, each seemed to key in and be emboldened by the their "enemy" running from them. The fact that he was armed and running away was probably only more empowering to their ego mindset

                      But even more than all that, I have to agree with medic here - not just the discipline, not just the restraint, but that is some seriously good under-stress shooting. I almost have to believe it's luck for a 17 yo to have that kind of composure in that situation.

                    4. I think he was being chased before the first shooting. I'm still a little vague on the timeline. Hopefully there is some clear video of the first shooting somewhere.

      2. He shot the whigger at the gas station first. Then the crowd chased him.

        There were two mobs, not one. The "whigger" he shot was the leader of the first mob that chased him until he was ran into some parked cars, and turned to see what was a happening when a member of that first mob discharged a round from a handgun, at which point the "whigger" (who was leading the mob after having tried to pick a fight with Kyle's group) lunged at him and tried to grab his rifle.

    2. I can show you a survey taken six months after we invaded Iraq that shows a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. After all, if he wasn’t behind the anthrax attack, then why would we have invaded? People rationalize.

      Speaking somewhat personally, there are plenty of people who would knowingly spend the next couple of years wearing masks and die without seeing family or friends (and force others to do the same) rather than the alternative.

    3. 'Every Angle + Timeline of Kyle Rittenhouse Kenosha Riot Shooting'


      1. Yes, this is the video I was looking for. Unless this is doctored in some way, or substantially more info comes out, I don't see how to interpret this as anything other then self defense.

        1. Clearly you aren't a DA taking Soros or allied money.

          1. Or it's a deliberate over-charge to keep the kid safe and not encourage more rioting.

            1. Or it’s a deliberate over-charge to keep the kid safe and not encourage more rioting.

              Whether deliberate or not it's definitely an over-charge, and I predict that unless he and his attornies decide to cop a plea on the under-aged possession charge (which I don't think is valid either) just to give the prosecution the excuse they desperately need to drop all of the others, he skates on everything.

        2. These videos were all out in the first hour or two after it happened

          1. Isn't it weird how fast the police acted on this, but the riots and the thirteen people killed during the riots, well that's just too hard to enforce the law.

            1. From what I gather, the kid essentially ran into the arms of police once he'd managed to fend off the mob.

              It's not hard to apprehend someone who's like, "at least I know you guys won't kill me! Take me in, please!"

              1. And why do you think Rittenhouse believed that the cops wouldn't kill him?

                1. He knows how to follow simple instructions?

                  1. How does he, or you, know that "following simple instructions" won't get them killed anyway?

                    1. Keep moving the goal posts.

                    2. By being aware of the over 100,000 daily contacts with the police that are peaceful and routine? You ask a lot of silly questions.

                    3. Wait, so Rittenhouse had over 100,000 contacts with the police already?

                      Oh wait, that can't be what you're saying, that would be absurd! So you're saying that a guy like Rittenhouse believes statistics over his own preconceived biases? That he is thinking "well, I'm pretty afraid that the police are going to shoot me, but statistically that is unlikely, so my fear must be unfounded and I will happily go to the police despite my inner fears"? Is that it? Because that type of thing doesn't actually happen all that much.

                      Instead it's likely because Rittenhouse believes, along with a lot of people around here, that the police are implicitly the "good guys with guns" who are acting, mostly, legitimately and lawfully and he has nothing to fear from them. But if he had a bunch of negative interactions with police from the past, I doubt he would have such an implicit view of the police in that way, despite what the statistics say.

                      Just look around here. Despite what all the studies say, you will not convince certain people here that illegal immigrants are NOT the biggest threat to the country since ever, and you will NOT convince certain people that free trade with China is a good thing for both countries. They are emotionally invested in their own particular point of view and no studies or statistics will change that, and I suspect their emotional POV stems from their own personal lives and anecdotal verifiable stories that they have heard. It is the same deal here. You will not convince certain people that the police are "good guys with guns", and that telling them to stop and obey what the police say, you might as well be telling them to stand still and let themselves be executed.

                    4. Breathtaking stupidity.

                    5. It almost always does. There are millions of police interactions every year and tens of questionable shootings. I have a lot of problems with the police, but it's important to keep some perspective.

                    6. Wait, so Rittenhouse had over 100,000 contacts with the police already

                      This has to be an act. Nobody who is as stupid as you're making yourself out to be could operate a computing device.

                2. "And why do you think Rittenhouse believed that the cops wouldn’t kill him?"

                  Because he was sane enough to approach their line slowly with his arms clearly raised in a universal posture of surrender

                3. He's rational.

  11. Hopefully this will invigorate the 'well regulated militia' movement to protect property from looters. We're in a war and you don't send your police in to fight a war, you send in your bravest soldiers. But they should at least be somewhat organized.

  12. Dumb as fuck to be out there in the first place, but if attacked by a mob of rioters, what are you gonna do? I bet Reginald Denny wishes he would have been carrying an AR.

    1. Just like the rioters, of which nearly no one is from Kenosha, people are stupid to look for trouble. Just wait a week they'll fuck up your neighborhood next

      1. Just like Trump said! BLM is going to burn down the suburbs! Vote for Daddy Trump to save you from the scary Marxists! I can't clutch my pearls hard enough!

        1. Because trump has fuck all to do with what is going on Kenosha Wisconsin.

          Only binary thinking can lead to such a conclusion.

          Just sayin,

          1. Yeah sure it's pure coincidence that Just Say'n is repeating Trump propaganda along the lines of "in Biden's America the suburbs will be burning".

            1. Maybe because in every single case it's been Democratically controlled cities that this has happened in? And Biden is a Democrat who has refused to condemn the riots. No it must be Trump's fault.

              1. Trump is the one irresponsibly stoking the fires of demagoguery and unsurprisingly too many people are falling for it.

                1. Yeah the Democrats never did that... Except for everytime they say Republicans want to return to segregation or slavery, kill all homosexuals, turn this country into a theocracy akin to the handmaidens take, and claim everyone right of center is white supremacists and fascists.

                2. Did you sleep through the Obama years and Bush years. Hell, they even accused Romney of wanting to restart slavery. Yeah, it's all Trump's fault. Hell even WK admits the Democrats are also to blame.

          2. Only binary thinking can lead to such a conclusion.

            You are responding to a functioning retard who, any day now, is going to reveal a new numeral system where binary+binary=5.

        2. Man, Just, yesterday you were a TDS case and now you want trump to be your Daddy.

    2. Yeah, if you have a rifle, you just can't let them get to the point of physically attacking you, or then they will likely have the rifle.

  13. It will be interesting to see what happens in the case of this kid.

    You have to be 18, I believe, to open carry in Wisconsin, and the kid is 17. Prosecutor is going to claim that his decision to come into the city carrying a weapon is a demonstration of felonious intent. He was breaking the law simply by being there, and in the commission of that crime, he used his weapon. So that will be their reasoning that he wasn't acting in self defense.

    But honestly, the charges sound like typical overcharging in an attempt to force a plea deal. Get yourself a good lawyer, kid, then beat this and sue the city for malicious prosecution.

    1. he could claim he was rabit hunting making it legal to have a gun

    2. He was on his way to target practice, thus it was legal for him to be open carrying -- Wisconsin law puts no time limit on how long before or after target practice someone under 18 can be carrying.

    3. The open carry law only applies to pistols, long arms are exempted because of hunting.

      1. Good info.

  14. What a clusterfuck of reportage.

    Reason, run by anarchists, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Cop Derangement Syndrome, riots, looting and burning. But can't call in the cops--cos we hate 'em--and can't call in the Feds--cos, states' rights and cos we hate Trump--yet Biden's an authoritarian enabler and seems to be missing in action, but, oh, what to do, we hate cops and Trump so much we might just have to vote Democrat, and we can't excuse some kid with a rifle who regardless of his age had every fucking right to carry and defend private property.

    What's the fucking alternative? Sitting at Reason HQ, safe and sound, calling for calm, with your monitor perched on some old Rothbard paperbacks--yet looking at those tattered spines wondering why the Private Defense Agencies haven't spontaneously sprung into life--yet calling for the cops to do something--just like the rioters call for cops when someone fights back--but no, hate cops, hate Trump, watch it burn, call for calm.

    Theory lacking. Does not compute. What to do. Call for calm. Vote Democrat. Oh, dear...

  15. Three months of violence and destruction and only now are journalists asking about a perps identity.


    1. And, before anyone says "this is different" stop and recall the two kids shot and killed for joyriding in CHAZ.

      1. And, let's be honest: How many people in BLM have ever heard of Secoriea Turner?

    2. My thoughts exactly. But what do you expect? These leftists still bring up Charlottesville for fucks sake.

  16. I assume everyone has seen the videos of Jacob Blake's shooting and the few seconds leading up to it. As questionable, to say the least, as the cop's actions were in shooting Blake was, they appeared to happen within what one might imagine a confused and/or frightened person might do in a chaotic situation (and the uncertain actions of the other cops appears to show a lack of training or planning on their parts). But what the hell explains the actions of Jacob Blake? To break off from a couple cop's grips and march around entering a car with his three kids in it while surrounded by cops demanding he stop? It seems an act of either mortal fear, an utter contempt for the cops or both. Might it be that some of these incidents are being driven by a real fear by black men that they will likely be killed if compliant (yes, this has certainly happened in very small, highly publicized numbers, similar to the number of incidents of seemingly healthy high school athletes dropping dead from an undiagnosed heart condition-similar in that neither should rationally live in terror of such an event) , a fear that has been played up for a couple years by BLM and their media allies?
    Like school shootings, might the current spate of unarmed black people's shootings be at least somewhat driven by how the media covers it?

    1. "But what the hell explains the actions of Jacob Blake?"

      He's a thug piece of shit that didn't want to go to jail?

      Jacob Blake likely hasn't thought more ahead than the next five minutes in his entire life. Nor has he likely cared about anyone other than himself. You are attributing rationality, forethought, impulse control to a guy who has demonstrated none of those in his life.

      Were it not for a Wisconsin and Kenosha government that seemingly wants a riot, you'd never have heard of Jacob Blake's name unless you were a local crime reporter.

      1. This isn't the first time he did this either. He was arrested in 2015 after threatening bar patrons with a pistol (which the genius accidentally dropped the magazine while threatening people). When the cops apprehended him, he refused to show his hands and place them outside the window. The cops didn't open fire, they siced a K9 on him, taking him down. Then as they tried to handcuff him he continued to wrestle with them. It was in nearby Racine. Given the fact that we now know he wasn't breaking up a fight but was part of it, had active warrants, that he resisted arrest and multiple commands to stop, the cops commanded him to drop a knife, which could be visible (it's unclear) in the video, this feels more and more like the Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin cases.

        1. See, the Madison360 link, to the scanner traffic about the cops, also claimed he didn't have a criminal record in Wisconsin beyond the warrants. I guess it could have been another Jake Blake in his mid 20s who did that mess in Racine. Or the Madison360 link was wrong.

          Normally in a situation like this, the cops would be racing forward to tell us all of this. You've explained before though that the State of Wisconsin's AG office has taken control of the investigation, and isn't letting anything out.

          Like what was intended by Holder's DoJ in Ferguson, except that video got out, of Michael Brown robbing the convenience store clerk not 30 minutes before he was turned into a good thug.

          1. They just released the Hospital Tox report from Floyd yesterday. They got the report in March.

          2. What the media get something wrong, in reference to his criminal record (either way because it's two different media sources with conflicting reports) never!

            1. It can be tough to confirm these things. Remember the round and round we did over whether Philando Castile had a CHL/LTC?

              This stuff isn't as centralized as we would like. Jesse brings up a great point about the toxscreen being available so early. Add to that, the entirety of Thao's bodycam, or the other officers' I get confidentiality, but your city is burning! Release that shit to the media!

              Unless of course, you want your city to burn.

      2. His point about BLM and the media coverage driving some of these incidents is very significant though.
        It's basically incitement to resist or assault at worst, and, at best, creates a subconscious psychological situation where both parties are simultaneously antagonistic and anxious.
        It's absolutely toxic

      3. He’s a thug piece of shit that didn’t want to go to jail?

        So what? That doesn't justify the cop's attempted murder of him.

        1. they didn't murder him, they shot him in self defense.

    2. Why are you giving the cop the benefit of the doubt here?
      The cop is the one who has supposedly had all this training in order to AVOID doing what he did - shooting an unarmed man in the back, when the cop's life was not in any danger whatsoever.
      The cop is the one who should be expected to act professionally here.
      I don't care how many warrants or felonies that Jacob Blake has on his record. Was the cop in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm at that very moment? No? Then he shouldn't have shot. Period, end of story.

      1. How did they know, when they ordered him to stop, tried to detain him and he kept trying to reach into his vehicle. They didn't know if he was reaching for a gun. And he had just resisted being arrested and refused multiple orders to stop. They couldn't have known how much danger they were in. It is also reported he had a knife and the cops told him multiple times to drop it.

        1. You keep bending over backwards to give cops the benefit of the doubt, and this is how you get abominations like "qualified immunity".

          Cops should never shoot unarmed people in the back 7 times at point blank range. Ever ever ever. I don't care what the guy's rap sheet was like. I don't care what you think he was reaching for in the car. He hadn't reached for it yet, had he? DON'T SHOOT UNARMED PEOPLE IN THE BACK 7 TIMES AT POINT BLANK RANGE. How hard can that be?

          1. You're bending over backwards to give a sociopathic, violent man with a history of assault and irrational behavior the benefit of doubt, chemjeff

            1. At the precise moment that the asshole cop shot Blake, who was unarmed, 7 times, in the back, was the cop in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm? Yes or no?

              The correct answer is no.

              In order to try to justify a "yes" answer you have to try to claim that Blake's actions in the moment were LESS important than his rap sheet. That whatever he was reaching for in the car should be presumed to be some weapon based on whatever his record was, regardless of whatever he was ACTUALLY reaching for. And if you want to give cops the power to lawfully shoot unarmed people in the back based on what their rap sheet says, then just get rid of the whole justice system entirely and appoint every cop as Judge Dredd, because that's what you're advocating.

              The cop should not be judge, jury and executioner. Period. Only if the cop is in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm should he open fire. He is not entitled to use deadly force for merely enforcing warrants. Got it?

              1. Is there any indication that the cops were aware of any outstanding warrant?

                1. There's scanner traffic between the cops and dispatcher, where Blake's status was given to the officers. They knew. Moreover, the initial call for the cops was about Blake's actions, not the women fighting.

                  Add to all that, Blake admitted having a knife, which was found on the driver's side floorboard of that car. Which would be why the officers stopped wrestling with him.

              2. If the reports are true he wasn't unarmed. And shooting more than once is fairly common. And when someone appears to be reaching for a gun, shooting them in the back is justifiable. The truth is you will condemn these cops even if the rumors that he did have a gun under the seat, where it appears he was reaching, turn out to be true.

                1. And when someone appears to be reaching for a gun, shooting them in the back is justifiable.

                  No it isn't. Not unless you want outright murder-by-cop to be legalized on the basis of the cop's word alone of "he was reaching for a gun, I swear". You are just trolling on this matter.

                  1. So you wait until they can fire at you first? BTW based on their position he could have easily fired under his arm and hit the cop with no problem using just about any modern day pistol. The cop was literally within arms reach right behind him. How long do you think it would take for him to draw an unholstered pistol point it backwards and fire? I am thinking, based upon my own knowledge of firearms, almost quicker than most human reaction time, which requires you to identify the threat, make a decision and act upon that decision. By that time, you have a slug in your belly. But your right, never justified to shoot someone in the back ever, this is the old west were we always face our threats face on.

              3. Interesting that you know the answer definitively.
                That's well beyond benefit of the doubt.
                Now prove it.

        2. Cops DON'T deserve the 'benefit of the doubt' because THEY are the ones with supposedly months and months of professional training to AVOID doing things like what this asshole cop did. You know who does deserves the benefit of the doubt? Individual citizens who don't go through these supposedly rigorous levels of police training and are simply there exercising their rights and going about their business. That's who. Regardless of what their rap sheet says. Prior felonies do not justify shooting him in the back 7 times when the cop was in zero danger of death or severe bodily harm.

          1. "Personal responsibility only applies to cops!"

            1. "Everyone should submit to the arbitrary authority of the police at every time and under every circumstance" -- Nardz

            2. Let me ask you this.
              If you genuinely thought a guy holding a gun to you was about to murder you, what would you do? Would you stand there and just let it happen? Would you do something to try to escape or resist? If you tried to escape or resist, would you consider it a "lack of personal responsibility" if that effort failed? Would any of the above change if the person whom you believe was intent on murdering you wore a badge?

              1. What a totally stupid non-sequitor. Did you watch the second video where they tried to arrest the guy and he resisted? He was told he was under arrest. They only pulled their guns after he broke free and started moving towards the vehicles. Originally they tried to subdue him and when that didn't work they attempted to tase him. They weren't pulling their guns unprovoked. And if he thought he was going to get murdered, it was because he chose to resist arrest. Note I didn't say he was murdered for resisting arrest, he was shot because he broke free and moved around his vehicle, refused to listen, reached into the vehicle for something and the cops couldn't see what he was reaching for. They tried to stop him multiple times before they fired. They warned him to stop multiple times. And even if he was afraid he was going to get murdered, that doesn't make it the cops fault either. The cops couldn't see what he was reaching for and they had ordered him to show his hands and stop. They tried to pull him back. It is completely possible that neither party is guilty of anything more than a tragedy. Maybe he was just trying to get in to refuse the situation (though this is unlikely as he was informed he was under arrest regarding warrants issued in July and as it turns out he wasn't there to break up the fight, as he claimed, but he was actually fully involved in the domestic disturbance).

                1. You are missing the entire point here, intentionally I imagine, but here it is again, for the others who may be reading:

                  Just because a guy wearing a badge points a gun at you and tells you to stop, doesn't necessarily make him a "good guy with a gun". You, and a lot of other people around here, are operating from the presumption that the police officer ought to be obeyed only because he has a badge and the backing of the state behind his actions, and that it's Burke's fault, or Floyd's fault, or any other victim's fault, for not immediately assuming, as you and others do, that the police are there to be the "good guys with guns". Why didn't they just listen and stop and obey as they were instructed to? Because, for a lot of people, they don't believe the police are on their side. A police officer pointing a gun at them is little different than some random gang hoodlum pointing a gun at them. If some random thug pointed a gun at you and told you to stop, would you do what they say without question? You might, but you might ALSO look for ways to resist or escape what you view to be an unjustified imposition against you.

                  Go rewatch the Burke videos, but this time, imagine that the police officer is not wearing a uniform nor a badge, but is just some guy with a gun. Would you still defend what the officer did? Probably not. You might even argue that Burke had a right to try to defend himself against what he viewed to be an unjust aggression against him.

                  Now, there does have to be a police force that enforces some laws. But in order to do that job effectively, the population at large has to be able to view the police, as you and others here do, as a legitimate agent of state power giving lawful orders that ought to be obeyed. When that isn't the case, and the police are viewed as nothing more than illegal gang members backed by state violence against them, then there cannot be effective policing. And so part of police reform must include the idea of reforming how police operates so that ALL segments of the community are able to buy into the idea that you and others do, of a police force that operates justly and within the bounds of the law with the legitimate authority to do what it does.

                  1. Sorry that should be Blake not Burke.
                    Guess I have Edmund Burke on the mind for some reason.

                    1. So you are saying you didn't watch the second video. And Blake feared for his life therefore once he escaped their custody and moved towards a vehicle, possibly holding a knife if reports are true, with kids in it, they should what? What should they do?

                    2. You are incredibly unintelligent, chemjeff.
                      Please, behave as you say is right next time you're pulled over.
                      We won't miss you

                  2. Because, for a lot of people, they don’t believe the police are on their side. A police officer pointing a gun at them is little different than some random gang hoodlum pointing a gun at them.

                    Normalizing this wrong understanding is why so many people die. This is what creates escalations. But chemjeff is happy people are dead because it allows him to grandstand.

              2. And even if you are convinced of this and your actions make the cops feel like you are going for a weapon, does that mean the cops are guilty automatically? They tried to use non lethal force to subdue him away from the vehicle. They were perfectly within their rights to arrest him, as he had outstanding warrants for domestic violence and sexual assault. They were unsuccessful in subduing and handcuffing him. At some point, you have to admit that given the circumstances it is entirely possible the cops after as most people would, and even if he were scared, the cops actions were not murder. You watched the first video and bought the narrative and refuse to let it go. I was pissed also. And hoped they fry, until I saw the second video, from a different angle and read they had a legitimate warrant, and that he resisted arrest. And that he was fully involved in the domestic disturbance call. And the cops ordered him to stop and you can see them trying to pull him back and stop him from getting in the vehicle before they fired.

                1. they had a legitimate warrant, and that he resisted arrest. And that he was fully involved in the domestic disturbance call. And the cops ordered him to stop and you can see them trying to pull him back and stop him from getting in the vehicle before they fired.

                  Literally none of that justifies shooting him in the back while unarmed 7 times.

                  1. There is some real dispute on the unarmed charge, and I know you will ridicule it, is now reporting a knife was found on him or in his vehicle and a video, though hardly conclusive, does show him holding something in his hands while he is escaping and the cops (all witnesses agree on this) telling him to drop the knife. And you are focused on the number of shots. Which most people who have shot under any form of stress will tell you, you tend not to count shots and end up shooting more often then to realized, it's instinctive, especially with a semi-automatic pistol. Hell, I've been duck hunting and emptied my shotgun without realizing I had fired three shots until the bolt bangs open. And that is just shooting at ducks and I've been hunting for 31 years and shooting for 38 years and been professionally trained in one of the strictest and most effective shooting schools around, Army BRM in basic. Only the USMC BRM course is more rigorous. We literally spent six weeks firing thousands of rounds down range 6 days a week and practicing in the evenings and on Sundays when we weren't at the range. Sorry to say cops don't get that intensive of training. And we also had to requalify every 6 months and fired every three months (combat arms does it more often). Cops maybe once a year in most police departments. That is a problem, but it does also explain why most police shootings involve more shots than most people would deem appropriate. And though I brag about dropping a deer with one shot, if I didn't you could be guaranteed I would keep firing. And if I thought my life or my families life was in danger, I may very well unload my Springfield XD 40 without meaning too.

                    1. Jeff has his feelz, and the world should conform to them

              3. Being able to modify your judgement based upon new evidence is the difference between book smarts and intellect.

                1. What new evidence would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back 7 times at point blank range?

                  That he had a warrant? Nope.
                  That he resisted arrest? Nope.
                  That he was lying about the reason for the 911 call? Nope.
                  That he "might have" had a weapon in the car that he was reaching for? *Not at the moment that he was shot*.
                  You're not going to get me to justify the "Trust-me-he-was-reaching-for-a-gun-so-I-can-shoot-whomever-I-feel-like" defense for cop misbehavior. I'm sorry that you fall for such an obvious trope.

                  1. You don't even allow the possibility. You have made your mind up that the cops are always at fault and refuse to entertain the idea that this could have been a mistake on both parties fault. It must be the cops fault. Because they should no, without seeing inside, because he is blocking their view, that the person who just physically resisted arrest wasn't going for a weapon. Because cops should be better than normal humans.

                    1. The cops aren't *always* at fault. But they are at fault here.

                      And no I am not going to declare some false equivalency between "some random guy on the street" and "trained professional agent of the state" and say OH WELL BOTH SIDES SCREWED UP. The trained professional agent of the state has a higher duty to act professional and not use his gun when he is not imminently facing death or severe bodily injury. That ought to be just accepted as baseline behavior. Screwing up that is not "just a mistake", it is a serious breach.

                      Because cops should be better than normal humans.

                      They are not superior human beings, no. But they should be held to a higher standard than your average guy on the street. Because THAT'S THEIR JOB.

                  2. Just admit it because they are cops, you've already decided their guilt. And you won't accept any other evidence to the contrary. You accuse me of being narrow-minded and buying tropes but you just admitted you won't buy any other explanation and you've made up your mind and nothing justifies this in your opinion and because they are cops they don't deserve any benefit of the doubt and therefore they are guilty, case closed. Yeah. I'm the only narrow minded one suffering from confirmation bias here?

                    1. Because they are cops, I hold them to a higher standard. I will not tolerate behavior in cops that might be tolerated in random people who don't have that level of training and who don't have the same professional duties as cops have. It is a perfectly understandable position for an average guy to say "I thought he was reaching for a knife so I shot him out of fear and uncertainty for my life". It still might be incorrect, but it is understandable. It is NOT understandable for a cop, when it is his entire job NOT to make those types of fear-based decisions, whose entire job is to de-escalate situations and not turn everything into a bloodbath if he can avoid it.

                      I think you are being far too generous to cops. Yes they are human beings but they are also professionals with the legal authority to shoot and kill people, and should be held to a higher standard for that reason alone.

          2. Innocent until proven guilty except the ones ChemJeff decides aren't worthy of Constitutional protection.

    3. My parents gave me "the talk" more than once. I'm a lily white girl.

      "When you get pulled over by the cops, it's yes sir, no sir, sorry sir, thank you sir, hands at two and ten, don't try to argue your way out of it. If you're being treated unfairly the person who's doing it is the last person you should appeal to. Just take the ticket and contest it later. And if you get caught doing something criminal or maybe they think you did when you didn't, just comply--no sense adding resisting arrest to your charges."

      I mean, I watched TV. I knew cops have guns and sometimes use them. But my parents never led me to believe that my very life was in jeopardy if I was ever pulled over.

      More than this, my parents always told me that if I was ever in real trouble--lost, sick, hurt, a victim of something--who do you go to? The cops.

      But I've seen black parents tell their young kids that the cops are not only not their friend, but their enemy. I watched a video of a black woman with two kids under 10 in the back seat, pulled over on a traffic violation, who literally told her kids the cops were going to kill all of them.

      1. Interesting enough acting like this is also a good way to not get a ticket. I read a book by a retired highway patrol man once on how to avoid getting a ticket and this was his number one advice. I've used it and managed to get out of numerous tickets (once doing 85 in a 65).

  17. I spent a few hours today watching all of the video I could find. Based on that video, this appears to be pure self defense. The 'earliest' video (in the sequence of events) I could find shows the shooter fleeing from a grown man who is chasing him and throwing something at him. I couldn't see the shot itself, but from two different camera angles it appears the man chases him, then they are behind some cars, and several shots are heard. Then the shooter is seen on his phone, calling someone (911?), and heard to say something to the effect of 'I think I shot someone'. So, self defense, then calling for help. Then several other assailants charge him and he runs away. The next videos show him running away, tripping and falling, and then attacked by at least three men, roughly simultaneously. One tries to kick him in the head, one swings a skateboard at his head. He fires several shots, from his back, hitting the skateboard assailant who drops and doesn't get up. The third man advances toward him, with a handgun drawn, but then stops. No shot. Then this man charges forward and the kid, still on his back, fires. Again, retreat, restraint, and then minimum shooting to protect his life. Amazing restraint, from what I can tell. Maybe more facts will come to light. But the several videos show pure self defense.

    1. Oh, sure, but none of that matters to Reason's reporters. They quote impeccable sources at the NYT, CNN and The Daily Caller who say he was a supporter of Blue Lives Matter, and that's all you need to know. So even though the anarchists who run Reason think it's okey-doke to carry and defend property, apparently this kid doesn't fall into that category.

      Wake up, fuckers: this kid falls *exactly* into the anarchist Private Defense Agency model. He's the poster boy for it. You don't get to set the rules when the state is abolished or the state abdicates its authority. The guys with the guns get to set the rules, and as far as I can see from watching the videos and listening to his interview, this kid did no wrong.

      So stop fucking bleating. This is the world you wanted, or at least the world you theorize about. Theory doesn't always quite compute, does it?

      1. "Wake up, fuckers: this kid falls *exactly* into the anarchist Private Defense Agency model. He’s the poster boy for it."

        This. Messy, isn't it? Maybe getting rid of the cops isn't such a good idea?

    2. That kid's poise throughout was damn impressive.
      He's in the middle of the street, in the middle of a riot, being actively chased and with potential threats coming from 360 degrees around him, with several hundred yards to cover before reaching the police line.
      And he managed not only to effectively defend himself, but to limit his hits to those attacking him. No collateral damage.
      Pretty amazing

      1. By himself, right?

        Damned better than a LOT of cops have shown they'd have done.

        1. Cops can't shoot for shit. That's their jam

          1. Police departments and academies don't stress it that's for damn sure. I mean in the Army we only spend six straight weeks turning civilians, many who have never held a gun, into marksman (the Marine Corp longer) most police academies one or two days. And we also requalify every 6 months, firing a minimum of 49 rounds (9 to zero, 40 to qualify). Cops five or six shots, once a year.

    3. If you expect Reason writers besides Robby to challenge a NYT narrative then that's on you for being so ignorant. Go read a libertarian publication if you want someone to offer a different perspective. Kochatarians never go against the narrative

      1. Oh, now, you wouldn't deprive me of the delight--and important civic duty--of calling out hypocrisy, misplaced sympathies and outright stupidity when I find it, would you?

        Thought not.

  18. Only 1 person arrested so apparently the rioters weren't doing anything wrong. They will be back, maybe not in Kenosha, but somewhere else and the exact same scenario will play out over and over. We might be getting closer to the time when the citizens will have to act in their own best interests. It doesn't seem that any police authorities want to do their jobs, lest they look like they are racist. What a crock of crappola. All these rioters should be herded into some stadium and locked down and treated like the vermin they are. Of course, in the new blm world, the victim is always the perp.

    1. Well, all but 2 of them. And the third one might have second thoughts.

      1. But he won't be charged for assault with a deadly weapon, and he definitely should be

  19. So the police will arrest people, but only if they impede rioters. Thirteen people have been killed in these riots, Reason has mentioned their incidences zero times.

    They're just regurgitating the NYT uncritically. That's all this publication is, stop pretending like it's anything more than that. Just laugh when the mob comes for them.

    1. Important self-defense tip: don't throw the paperback Rothbards, throw the hardcovers. Those stiff edges can really hurt.

  20. The cop had no business shooting Jacob Blake in the back. None whatsoever. At the moment of the shooting, was the cop in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm? No? Then the cop shouldn't have shot. Period. End of story. If he can't abide by this simple rule then he has no business being a cop and having the legal authority to kill people.

    And what was this guy from Antioch, Illinois doing there in the first place? Trying to stir up shit, get the Electric Boogaloo started? What a bunch of crap. How many times have you all complained about "BLM rioters being bussed in" based on some insane conspiracy nonsense? Well here is an actual example of a violent asshole bussing himself in to where he wasn't supposed to be, found himself way over his head, and nearly got himself killed over it. Sure it may have been self-defense -- AFTER he inserted himself in a situation that he had zero business being involved in. He gets no sympathy from me for trying to use this episode to get Civil War Part 2 started. I am totally unsurprised that the usual suspects around here defending this Rittenhouse asshole do not spend one moment reflecting on why he decided to take it upon himself to "defend" anything miles and miles away from where he lives or his own property.

    This place is such a cesspool of little more than anti-left hatred and right-wing paranoia. Just change the name of this place to Right-Wing Buttsniffers already because that is basically what it has become.

    1. Gee, I love how you get to declare the case closed. Did he resist being arrested? Yes he did. Did the cops order him to stop moving towards his truck? Yes they did. Did he try to reach into the truck, despite being told to stop? Yes he did. Did one cop try to pull him back? Yes they did. Did the cops know he wasn't reaching for a gun? No they didn't.

      1. Yes I get to declare my opinion. Do you have a problem with that? Or are you going to call that me being "smug" again? Maybe your calling me "smug" is just you insulting me and trying to deny the legitimacy of my point of view. No that couldn't be it. You're a salt-of-the-earth type, aka a "real Murican".

        1. Stop being a coward and go "protest"
          You won't be missed

          1. I have no doubt you wouldn't mind shooting me for nothing more than peaceably exercising my rights because you're a fascist shithead.

            1. There you go again, assigning evil to those who dare disagree with you.

              1. Nardz the Internet Warrior is a no-shit fascist who advocates for literal mass murder of his political opponents. That's evil. Of course I think the actual Nardz is some pussy living in a basement masturbating to naked pictures of Trump, but that's another story.

                1. The fantasies you have to tell yourself to continue breathing are just sad.

                  I don't advocate murder, I advocate justice.
                  Don't you pretend to value justice?

                  "shooting me for nothing more than peaceably exercising my rights"
                  Now tell us more about your concept of "peaceably exercising" your rights, because you usually include leftist arson and murder in your definition of rights.

        2. No, you can have your opinion. It's when new evidence has come out and you don't modify it that it goes from opinion to dogma. And that is where you are at.

      2. Denying the legitimacy of your opinion? This after you lead off by calling everyone whose opinion differs right wing butterflies? And labeling it a cess pool because people don't agree with you. Hypocrisy or lack of self awareness?

    2. "Right-Wing Buttsniffers..."

      Oh, please, while butt-sniffing is a fine thing, I prefer to be known as a butt-licker.

      That way both parties have fun.

      1. Notice how he complains about me calling him smug and implies I am trying to deny the legitimacy of his opinion right after he posts this about anyone's opinion he doesn't agree with. Or pushes back against his opinion. He hates being challenged. And then he plays the victim card. Implying everyone is being mean to him, after he pulls shit like this.

        1. No, I think your problem is that you tend to operate from a modified version of the "appeal to nature" fallacy. You work the land, so you're a "real Murican" and therefore your opinion ought to count more than everyone else's, and people who disagree with you are just smug pointy-headed asshole intellectuals living in ivory towers who should be dismissed out of hand.

          1. Uhmm, you do realize my day job I'm a university professor, right? And no, I don't think my opinion matters more or is better than anyone elses. I gave admitted when I'm wrong on here multiple times and even have changed my opinion given a good argument. You are strawmanning again. Arguing against a caricature of me you have created than anything I've ever said or even implied. Where have I ever said I am a real American and you aren't? Where have I said, outside debates on agriculture's, which is what I teach (Animal science for the most part) that my working the soil makes me more of an expert on anything? Maybe when I argue on medicine (17 years as a medic and nurse) or on military matters (4th generation Army, 10 years service and don't even get me started on uncles, aunts and cousins that have also served) I might say I have more experience than the average American citizen. But that is because all of that is true. Do I have more experience than my Brother in law who did two tours in Iraq, the last one with a scout sniper platoon? Nope, do I have more experience with the military than someone whose closest experience is watching saving private ryan, yes.

  21. the cops were deployed to protect city hall not private property. Govt failed again to protect peoples life, liberty, and property. The gov and mayor are at fault. If you allow marxist thugs to attack private property people will defend it. This kid didn't belong there but govt should have been..and wasn't.

    1. The cops are not personal bodyguards, it is not their jobs to pre-emptively protect everyone's property. Maybe one might argue that they ought to be, but as things stand now, they aren't. And no the asshole kid from Antioch had no business being there stirring up shit.

      1. You have no business being here.
        Or anywhere.

        Now don't whine - those are the rules you just declared

        1. You certainly don't belong here. What, did Stormfront kick you out?

          1. Yeah and he wonders why people are mean to him. And I am sure he will respond he is the victim, always.

      2. If only you condemned the rioters and looters with the same zeal, maybe you'd get taken seriously then.

        1. And by "condemn the rioters" perhaps what is meant is, "condemn everyone who shows up to a protest and is within 500 yards of anyone who trespasses or jaywalks". Or maybe it's "condemn everyone who shows up to a protest and is standing within 500 yards of someone who claims to stand for BLM who may or may not be a Marxist". If the people who were so insistent that the rioting be condemned weren't so supportive of bona-fide police state tactics against everyone at a protest, not just the actual rioters, then maybe the pleas to "condemn rioters" would be taken more seriously.

          1. No condemn the violence because anytime anyone asks why you condemn the cops and right for your perception of them overreacting but never blame the rioters you offer this strawman. You say what rioters? Or try to argue semantics on who is and isn't rioting. Or you try to argue they aren't true BLM or Antifa or socialist or whatever. You can't condemn them because you agree with them and don't really believe their violence and the multiple people these riots have already killed is the same evil (in your eyes) as a kid defending himself. Because he must be evil because he was right wing. You almost said exactly that upstream.

          2. Condemn the people lighting shit on fire, destroying public property, assaulting people for taping them, destroying private and public buildings, harassing diners in a private restaurant, going through neighborhoods and shining lights in people's windows as they try to sleep demanding they wake up. That is what I mean. Not the straw man you just created.

            1. How about condemn the people who block city traffic and pull people out of their vehicles. Or condemn the people who murdered a retired (black) police officer who was trying to keep the peace. Or the ones who stopped the cops from investigating the deaths of two teens in Seattle or tried to stop them from arresting a rapist. Or the ones who beat a man for stopping someone from robbing his shop in Seattle. Start with these incidents, none of this trying to imply I mean peaceful protestors who aren't being aggressive to the public.

              1. I'm not going to play your guilt by association game.

                Give me a specific example involving a specific person allegedly committing a specific act and I'll take a look at it.

                But no I will not mass condemn everyone for the alleged crimes of a few.

                1. I just gave you multiple examples and didn't ask you to condemn based upon guilt by association. I asked you to condemn any one of the specific incidents I listed. See, this is exactly how I said you would react. I list specific incidents and state I don't want you to condemn them all (when I referenced your strawman argument as to what you think I mean by confirming the violence) and what do you do, double down. I gave a long list of specific incidents. Condemn just one, not everyone, just one incident. No game, just condemn the killing of the retired police officer, or the attempted murder in Portland when they lit fire to a building and tried to trap people inside. No, not every protestor, but those specific acts of violence.

                  1. No, you gave me a litany.

                    Give me some substantiated facts instead.

                    1. You're pathetic, chemjeff

                    2. the people who block city traffic and pull people out of their vehicles.

                      the people who murdered a retired (black) police officer who was trying to keep the peace.

                      the people who stopped the cops from investigating the deaths of two teens in Seattle or tried to stop them from arresting a rapist.

                      the people who beat a man for stopping someone from robbing his shop in Seattle.


                      Condemn away.

                      But you won't. You'll ask for something else. Perpetually.

                  2. All of those incidents have occurred since June. And I just listed two specific examples. Admit it you can't condemn these acts.

          3. Your problem Jeff is that you like to believe you are some wise, Vulcanistic sage who looks at everything dispassionately and logically. You don't like it being pointed out that you are just as petty, and tribalist and narrow minded as every other human being. You can't stand when people push back against your opinions and assign them evil intent, because you have convinced yourself that your opinions are from a point of confirmation bias, that you are above it all. Oh you claim this isn't the case, but just about everyone sees that is exactly what is going on. And you can't bring yourself to condemn your tribe, no matter what they do, nor ever admit when you might be wrong. You believe you are smarter or wiser than anyone you are debating and it shows in your posts.

            1. *I* am the one who says here all the time that I am a flawed human being just like everyone else. *You* are the one who condemns me for not living up to some standard that I never claimed to hold myself to in the first place.

              You believe you are smarter or wiser than anyone you are debating and it shows in your posts.

              No, that is your own insecurity talking.

              1. I said you claim it but you don't act it. I've never seen you apologise or admit you are wrong, you rarely ever criticize your preferred political preference. You accuse others of actions that you use yourself. No, I stand by my assertion. And as for my insecurity. Hell yes I am flawed and insecure like every human being, although people accuse me of being a Vulcan or Sheldon all the time. I've accepted who I am and my faults, and freely admit them. I don't see you honestly ever doing that. I see you pay it lip service and then go right back to acting exactly how I just described you above. I mean you just tried it with the whole stating I argue because I work in agriculture that i think that makes my opinion matter more and that I distrust intellectuals (despite being a professor myself and being accused of being overly intellectual by anyone who knows me and over analytical). Basically you have created a caricature of what you think I am based upon nothing I've ever said and you keep trying to force me to fit into it. Because that is easier than you thinking I might have a point.

                1. Oh shut up. I am tired of how you turn these discussions into some sort of middle school bitchfest about me. You don't like me? Fine. Duly noted. Now move on.

  22. in the spirit of making no partisan happy, after reviewing all the videos i conclude Blake did NOT deserve 7 bullets in the back while the three 'protesters' who took lead did.

    1. Nobody "deserved" it. Because if it wasn't for the murderous cop shooting Blake in the back, there wouldn't have been any protests or riots in the first place.

      1. Agency doesn't exist.

        1. right? cop can be a murdering piece of shit, but the rioters and looters own their decisions. Even if this Rittenhouse kid is some awful Trumper, he still has a right to self defense and i saw nothing in the videos to suggest he did anything other than open fire as a last resort.

          be really curious to find out why Rittenhouse was running from the first person.

          1. He didn't want a fight and the guy was throwing glass bottles at him? Just a guess.

          2. And he is a 17 yo kid, who thought he would help by protecting some businesses and then shit got real and he decided he was in over his head but they wouldn't let him leave? No, they had to punish him for wrong think?

            1. He’s a 17 year old kid who comes to a volatile area filled with angry people who believed they were wronged. Then he walks around this angry crowd with the big gun and looks threatening. Angry people probably yelled at him, threw stuff at him etc. ran at him. He ended up killing people. I don’t think he’s a hero, he’s a dumbass vigilante. The so called militia walks like a gang, smells like a gang and is a gang pretending to be heros. If they were black they would have been shot by police when they showed up with big guns after curfew.

              1. Bullshit, pussy.
                His presence is far more justifiable than ANY of the "protesters"

  23. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Read More

  24. I would love to be a part of this giveaway! Thanks for the offer! for morevisitors

  25. A different take on the shooting, and more pictures that might support a self-defense claim.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.