police-involved shooting in Kenosha, WI...unrest ensues

[fskimospy]

Potentially yes, and potentially no. Wisconsin has legal exemptions for possession of a firearm for those under 18.

Please cite the exemption you think would apply here.

Even the statute requiring the age be 18 is probably not Constitutional in the first place.

Lol. If you think laws prohibiting minors from owning deadly weapons are unconstitutional...good luck with that.

I think with as high a profile of a case as this is, such as statute is going to be challenged all the way up.

I doubt the higher courts would hear it as there’s no significant controversy to be decided. It’s a straightforward criminal case.

 

[HumblePie]

Please cite the exemption you think would apply here.

Already cited by his defense. Not doing your homework here.

Lol. If you think laws prohibiting minors from owning deadly weapons are unconstitutional...good luck with that.


I doubt the higher courts would hear it as there’s no significant controversy to be decided. It’s a straightforward criminal case.

One can join the military or the police at the age of 16 and legally carry a firearm for their job. So unless that changes then yes it would be easy to consider any law restricting age above that to be un Constitutional when it comes to a declared Right.

 

[NWRMidnight]

He has a history of pulling a knife and USING it on cops. Literally stated in the article I posted. Meaning attempting to stab officers as well as other people.

BREAKING: Jacob Blake’s Criminal History and Arrest Warrant Finally Revealed After Police Shooting in Kenosha

Were Kenosha police justified?

us24news.com

While this information has already been posted here, I am not manipulating the facts of his legal record. You certainly are trying to downplay it though. Also, sexual assault is the LEGAL term for the common term rape. It is rape. As for the exact details of the allegation.

This is why Jacob Blake had a warrant out for his arrest

The cops involved in the shooting of Jacob Blake were attempting to arrest him for violating a restraining order stemming from an alleged sexual assault, The Post has learned.

nypost.com

Shoving your hand as a man up a female's vag that doesn't want it is rape no matter how you want to spin it.

They don't make plea deals down to domestic abuse in rape cases you fucking idiot.. You can't tell what is in his hand in that video.. you are just assuming that is what it is, because it fits Your narrative. . Yes, the article you linked said he had pulled a knife a cop in the past. That doesn't mean shit.. that doesn't' mean he did it then. 90% of your argument is his past record and his past actions.. they have no barring on what happened here.

Why am I defending him.. BECAUSE HE WAS SHOT IN THE BACK 7 TIMES AS HE WAS GETTING INTO HIS CAR... there is NO justification for that.. they had other options. His past record doesn't mean shit.. there are millions of people in this country who have done bad things, and have changed there life.. You want to convict him based off of his past record.

If he had been shot while he was "supposable" swinging a knife at the officers.. then there would be probably cause to shoot.,. but he wasn't.. he was shot in the back leaving..

 

[fskimospy]

Already cited by his defense. Not doing your homework here.

Please cite the exemption. Since you claim the defense already cited it this should be easy for you.

One can join the military or the police at the age of 16 and legally carry a firearm for their job. So unless that changes then yes it would be easy to consider any law restricting age above that to be un Constitutional when it comes to a declared Right.

Lolwut. This is so dumb as to be functionally incoherent. Just because federal and state laws permit firearm ownership in some cases below the age of 18 is utterly meaningless as to whether or not the constitution prohibits states from restricting it.

 

[HumblePie]

They don't make plea deals down to domestic abuse in rape cases you fucking idiot.. You can't tell what is in his hand in that video.. you are just assuming that is what it is, because it fits Your narrative. . Yes, the article you linked said he had pulled a knife a cop in the past. That doesn't mean shit.. that doesn't' mean he did it then. 90% of your argument is his past record and his past actions.. they have no barring on what happened here.

Why am I defending him.. BECAUSE HE WAS SHOT IN THE BACK 7 TIMES AS HE WAS GETTING INTO HIS CAR... there is NO justification for that.. they had other options. His past record doesn't mean shit.. there are millions of people in this country who have done bad things, and have changed there life.. You want to convict him based off of his past record.

Wrong, They have EVERYTHING to do with what happened. The police would have access to those records before showing up, which they did and they read, so would know the violent past actions of Jacob Blake at the scene. The would have to take that into consideration when handling Jacob Blake. So yes, his criminal past literally has EVERYTHING to do with the situation. They were specifically called out there by the woman because he was breaking a restraining order against him and she told police he still had an arrest warrant out for him as well.

Again, police have no idea at the scene that those kids in the car are his. Nor could they. They see an armed man that JUST ATTACKED THEM approaching a car full of kids. They have to assume he is a danger to them as well. They literally had no choice but to shoot. You don't seem to understand that concept of the law. The whole situation was in Jacob's hands from the get go. Had he not resisted then he would never have been shot in the back.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Wrong, They have EVERYTHING to do with what happened. The police would have access to those records before showing up, which they did and they read, so would know the violent past actions of Jacob Blake at the scene. The would have to take that into consideration when handling Jacob Blake. So yes, his criminal past literally has EVERYTHING to do with the situation. They were specifically called out there by the woman because he was breaking a restraining order against him and she told police he still had an arrest warrant out for him as well.

Again, police have no idea at the scene that those kids in the car are his. Nor could they. They see an armed man that JUST ATTACKED THEM approaching a car full of kids. They have to assume he is a danger to them as well. They literally had no choice but to shoot. You don't seem to understand that concept of the law. The whole situation was in Jacob's hands from the get go. Had he not resisted then he would never have been shot in the back.

False.

 

[HumblePie]

Lolwut. This is so dumb as to be functionally incoherent. Just because federal and state laws permit firearm ownership in some cases below the age of 18 is utterly meaningless as to whether or not the constitution prohibits states from restricting it.

Wrong. The fact there is an already defined federal age definition set on firearm ownership sets the upper bar for such restrictions for Rights. Even that isn't technically a bar on ownership really. You are functionally incoherent if you can't understand something so simple. Not even worth the bother to explain anything further if you can't understand something this simple. Literally most states have no law on age restrictions. The laws on the books for various states restricting ownership by age hasn't really haven't ever been challenged either.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/27/in-30-states-a-child-can-still-legally-own-a-rife-or-shotgun/

 

[HumblePie]

False.

True.

 

[NWRMidnight]

True.

You can believe what you want, but you are wrong. Funny, how they know all about him.. but you say they didn't know that those kids are his in the car.. HIS car.. dude, you are pulling shit out of your ass. Like I said you are just trying to fish for a justification to shoot someone 7 times in the back..

 

[HumblePie]

You can believe what you want, but you are wrong.

LOL, except the fact that the legal system has already agreed with what I stated. Which shows what you stated to be wrong by that standard.

 

[NWRMidnight]

LOL, except the fact that the legal system has already agreed with what I stated. Which shows what you stated to be wrong by that standard.

Uh.. sure.. we just had a summer of riots because of police not being held accountable.. and nothing has changed.. Pull your head out of the ground. The police very seldom face the legal system.. they chose not to charge him after the investigation.. that doesn't mean he was justified.. not even close.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong. The fact there is an already defined age definition set on firearm ownership sets the upper bar for such restrictions for Rights.

No. This is not how the constitution works. Either the constitution prohibits restrictions on firearms ownership by minors or it does not. (It doesn’t, lol.)

If the state passed a law that prohibited federal officers under the age of 18 from performing their duties then that specific part of the law might be preempted, but that’s an entirely different matter and not at question here.

Also, for the third time, please cite the exemption you believe applies here.

You are functionally incoherent if you can't understand something so simple. Not even worth the bother to explain anything further if you can't understand something this simple.

I hope you continue to try and explain this because it’s first day of law school wrong and your explanations are likely to get funnier and funnier as you try to avoid being wrong.

 

[HumblePie]

Uh.. sure.. we just had a summer of riots because of police not being held accountable.. and nothing has changed.. Pull your head out of the ground.

Riots don't change truth. Just because a bunch of dumbass had a stupid opinion on what happened doesn't make it right. Mob rule is very ever rarely right.

 

[HumblePie]

No. This is not how the constitution works. Either the constitution prohibits restrictions on firearms ownership by minors or it does not. (It doesn’t, lol.)
If the state passed a law that prohibited federal officers under the age of 18 from performing their duties then that specific part of the law might be preempted, but that’s an entirely different matter and not at question here.

Dumbass, the Constitution has no restriction as you stated. It literally states shall not be infringed for gun ownership. So by that example, any law on any form of restriction is no Constitutional. However, we have such a thing as strict scrutiny as a doctrine that allows for very narrowly tailored exemptions to Rights as outlined in the Constitution. Any law passed would have to get by such a legal bar. No one has ever challenged such age restriction laws on the premise of strict scrutiny. As such, they may not be Constitutional. It if my opinion they are not. The fact you fail to understand this still is why you are a dunce. No further explanations are forthwith from me on this to your dumbass.,

Also, for the third time, please cite the exemption you believe applies here.

Already said I am not doing your homework. So fuck off. Not going to get into your Motte and Bailey logic fallacy routine here for this shit.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Riots don't change truth. Just because a bunch of dumbass had a stupid opinion on what happened doesn't make it right. Mob rule is very ever rarely right.

Ding ding ding.. now the truth comes out.. You don't believe there is a problem with police brutality, Semitic racism, and believe that the police are justified in using force when ever they see fit. This has nothing to do with Jacob Blake but your own bias and disbelief of the facts and truth that those things do exist. So you go out of your way to try and Prove the police justification. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[HurleyBird]

One can join the military or the police at the age of 16 and legally carry a firearm for their job. So unless that changes then yes it would be easy to consider any law restricting age above that to be un Constitutional when it comes to a declared Right.

Nah, if anything the constitutional challenge would be voiding it for vagueness. It's a very poorly written law where the intent and the literal textual interpretation are at odds.

 

[HumblePie]

Ding ding ding.. now the truth comes out.. You don't believe there is a problem with police brutality, Semitic racism, and that police are in the right. This has nothing to do with Jacob Blake but your own bias and disbelief of the facts and truth. Thanks for clearing that up.

DING DING DING, nice logic fallacy. I didn't say that at all dumbass. The fact you came to this conclusion is because of your own inherent racism and bias. I looked at the situation and judged it by the only objective method we have which is the laws. The legal system went through the process and found nothing wrong with the actions of the police here.

 

[HumblePie]

Nah, if anything the constitutional challenge would be voiding it for vagueness. It's a very poorly written law where the intent and the literal textual interpretation are at odds.

That would be the easy way out and typically what would happen so it never gets judged under strict scrutiny on its legal merits (or lack thereof imho).

 

[ondma]

There is no question about the knife. He had one in hand and stated it even on Good Morning America. The video shows him swinging at officers when they had him pinned at the rear right tire. You can see the cops jump up and back when he does moments before he gets up. Jacob Blake says he only picked up his knife when he saw it fell to the ground during the initial scuffle, but officers said he swung it in their direction while picking it up. Maybe Jacob didn't he think he swung his blade in a threatening manner while picking up the knife off the ground, but his perception at that point of his actions don't matter when it comes to the justification of what the officers are doing.

You also linked a news article from August... Yahoo news article ripping your linked article to shreds for not updating even after knowing better. https://news.yahoo.com/jacob-blake-himself-blows-unarmed-203902290.html

The fact that people are still trying to defend this piece of human scum is ridiculous to me. I don't care what the color of his skin is. He is a convicted felon and was breaking the law at the time the police arrived. He also had an active arrest warrant and knew it. The police did everything right based on that moment. People defending this puke at this point are just as much trash as he is with the evidence we publicly know so far. Sending the wrong message that crime does pay. Literally so in this case. Jacob Blake gets millions for breaking the law. For raping women and abusing children. Wow good job defending this guy.

Yes I am using harsh language here because I have zero sympathy for people that rape women and abuse children. Also less sympathy for those that defend such actions unless said person is an attorney doing their job. Then all the respect for such attorney and good luck. For everyone else who defends human POS like Blake I think they are just as much of one too.

Saying someone should not be shot 7 times in the back is not the same as "defending him".

 

[fskimospy]

Dumbass, the Constitution has no restriction as you stated. It literally states shall not be infringed for gun ownership. So by that example, any law on any form of restriction is no Constitutional. However, we have such a thing as strict scrutiny as a doctrine that allows for very narrowly tailored exemptions to Rights as outlined in the Constitution. Any law passed would have to get by such a legal bar. No one has ever challenged such age restriction laws on the premise of strict scrutiny. As such, they may not be Constitutional. It if my opinion they are not. The fact you fail to understand this still is why you are a dunce. No further explanations are forthwith from me on this to your dumbass.

I for one eagerly await the SCOTUS decision that says minors are free to arm themselves as they see fit. I suspect we will both be waiting a very, very long time. Lol.

Imagine thinking the constitution mandates that eight year olds should be able to buy firearms. Hahaha.

Already said I am not doing your homework. So fuck off. Not going to get into your Motte and Bailey logic fallacy routine here for this shit.

Okay, if you won’t say what exception you believe applies here than the only reasonable interpretation is that you were lying and don’t have one.

 

[Perknose]

Already said I am not doing your homework. So fuck off. Not going to get into your Motte and Bailey logic fallacy routine here for this shit.

e-spy is asking you to do YOUR homework. Do it, please.

If there's one thing I've learned here in P&N it is that it generally doesn't pay to be on the other side of any substantive argument with Mr. E!

 

[HumblePie]

e-spy is asking you to do YOUR homework. Do it, please.

If there's one thing I've learned here in P&N it is that it generally doesn't pay to be on the other side of any substantive argument with Mr. E!

LOL nope. It's easy to find. Look for Rittenhouse defense possession. I am sure not all defense strategies at this point have been made public either ahead of the trial. Nor should they be. The reason I didn't want to bring it up is because he would want to argue the merits of such defenses and it would be a worthless argument at this point in the legal process. If he wants to know he can look it up himself and argue with himself on it. Hence why I called it a Motte and Bailey routine.

 

[HumblePie]

Saying someone should not be shot 7 times in the back is not the same as "defending him".

The general statement of no one should be shot in the back, regardless of the number of times, is one of those feel good statements that really make no sense. Like we should have world peace, no poverty, and everyone should live forever! I am applying to such a statement as the current situation of Jacob Blake. He was shot in the back for his direct actions. The cops did the right thing shooting him in the back based on what they knew at the time they fired. That was also legally justified after being investigated thoroughly. Continuing such statements in light of that is the same as "defending him" because it is. Jacob Blake was the sole person in control of the outcome of that situation. This situation never about police brutality, racism, or whatever other incorrect statement has been made. It was literally a cut and dry situation of a made breaking the law, resisting arrest, acting violent towards police, and showing himself approaching young children while armed. Any downplaying the criminal actions of Jacob Blake at this point or are still making baseless accusations against the officers here is straight up morally corrupt.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL nope. It's easy to find. Look for Rittenhouse defense possession. I am sure not all defense strategies at this point have been made public either ahead of the trial. Nor should they be. The reason I didn't want to bring it up is because he would want to argue the merits of such defenses and it would be a worthless argument at this point in the legal process. If he wants to know he can look it up himself and argue with himself on it. Hence why I called it a Motte and Bailey routine.

Exactly - you want to say an exemption applies to him without having to defend the merits of that argument.

This is exactly why I asked you to specify it, so that we can proceed to demolish this stupid argument. You know this as well as I do.

 

[brycejones]

Someone is afraid to humbly defend their assertions again.