*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9598
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #80 on: November 18, 2021, 08:03:19 PM »
I just assumed YouTube actually did take it down. This is the world we live in.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9598
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #81 on: November 19, 2021, 06:16:45 PM »
On the notion of lacking guilt.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #82 on: November 19, 2021, 06:55:20 PM »
Not guilty on all counts

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1349
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Not Guilty!
« Reply #83 on: November 19, 2021, 07:39:25 PM »
One would think that the leftist media would step back and reconsider calling a defendant a domestic terrorist... Joy Reid.

But no, they double down with headlines like this...

"Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill"- MSNBC
If you can read this without puking... https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-homicide-rcna5748

The meltdown will be amusing to watch.  Pop the popcorn
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
    • View Profile
Re: Not Guilty!
« Reply #84 on: November 19, 2021, 07:42:23 PM »
One would think that the leftist media would step back and reconsider calling a defendant a domestic terrorist... Joy Reid.

But no, they double down with headlines like this...

"Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill"- MSNBC
If you can read this without puking... https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-homicide-rcna5748

The meltdown will be amusing to watch.  Pop the popcorn

We don't need two Rittenhouse threads, merging this with the other one.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #85 on: November 19, 2021, 07:51:03 PM »
My mother saw the news and said he was guilty on all counts and I almost lost my shit. Then she realized the word “not” exists.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Online xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8063
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2021, 08:04:12 PM »
Not guilcup!
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2771
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #87 on: November 19, 2021, 09:32:01 PM »
On the other hand, he was specifically and expressly going to the event to act as a vigilante. His intent in that regard is quite clear. And that action directly led to the deaths of three people. Is it really just if he gets off scot free?

He wasn't specifically or expressly doing either of those things. That's your own speculation on the subject fed to you by other people speculating on the subject. That sort of speculation is nonsense, which is why very coincidentally, it wasn't presented in court.

No... He definitely expressly stated his intent was to act as a vigilante. Mind you, he didn't use that specific word. But his stated purpose for traveling to Kenosha with his assault rifle in tow was to protect a local business in an area where he expected there to be violence. That's literally what vigilantism is. Generalize it, and you have the definition of vigilantism.

Quote
I still think the real villains are the cops who chatted up an apparent minor carrying around a deadly weapon without questioning it. The fact that they welcomed his presence and the presence of others acting as vigilantes is troubling and should be considered negligent.

Why would a cop question a person open carrying in a state where such a thing is completely legal?

Because he looks like a minor. Store clerks are expected to card anyone who looks like they could be under 35 that tries to buy a pack of cigarettes.  Our society is broken if we can't expect a similar level of caution in the case of carrying a deadly weapon.

 
Quote
You could argue that the cop should have asked Rittenhouse for his ID, but other than that, there's nothing inherently wrong with carrying a "deadly weapon" out in the open.

Weird that you're so flippant about this given that three people are dead because they didn't ask for his ID. But you Righties tend to go through mental gymnastics like this to justify heinous acts all the time so I suppose it's not surprising.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2021, 09:35:43 PM by Roundy »
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #88 on: November 19, 2021, 09:35:19 PM »
No... He definitely expressly stated his intent was to act as a vigilante. Mind you, he didn't use that specific word. But his stated purpose for traveling to Kenosha with his assault rifle in tow was to protect a local business in an area where he expected there to be violence. That's literally what vigilantism is. Generalize it, and you have the definition of vigilantism.

Okay, none of that happened. Next.

Because he looks like a minor. Store clerks are expected to card anyone who looks like they could be under 35 that tries to buy a pack of cigarettes.

They're cops, not cashiers, Roundy.

Weird that you're so flippant about this given that three people are dead because they didn't ask for his ID.

Three people? Really? Just goes to show that you're yet another person who hasn't watched the trial or the videos. Sad! Kyle didn't even interact with the cops until after the shooting. Are cops supposed to omnipotently teleport around the region asking for IDs?

you Righties

lmao

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #89 on: November 19, 2021, 09:47:41 PM »
Rittenhouse was allowed to carry that rifle in WI. IDing him would have been a useless infringement.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2771
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #90 on: November 19, 2021, 10:03:49 PM »
No... He definitely expressly stated his intent was to act as a vigilante. Mind you, he didn't use that specific word. But his stated purpose for traveling to Kenosha with his assault rifle in tow was to protect a local business in an area where he expected there to be violence. That's literally what vigilantism is. Generalize it, and you have the definition of vigilantism.

Okay, none of that happened. Next.

Ok, I was mistaken that he traveled with the weapon. It doesn't functionally change the argument that he was acting as a vigilante. He was expecting violence, he was there to protect a car dealership, he had a deadly weapon. Is any of that not factual?

Quote
Because he looks like a minor. Store clerks are expected to card anyone who looks like they could be under 35 that tries to buy a pack of cigarettes.

They're cops, not cashiers, Roundy.

So? How is a law like this supposed to be enforced if cops aren't IDing people who look like minors and are carrying a weapon?

Quote
Weird that you're so flippant about this given that three people are dead because they didn't ask for his ID.

Three people? Really? Just goes to show that you're yet another person who hasn't watched the trial or the videos. Sad!

Oh, you got me, I misspoke. Two dead, one injured. It doesn't change my argument.

Quote
Kyle didn't even interact with the cops until after the shooting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/29/fact-check-video-police-thanked-kyle-rittenhouse-gave-him-water/5661804002/

Quote
you Righties

lmao

Ok

Rittenhouse was allowed to carry that rifle in WI. IDing him would have been a useless infringement.

The charge was thrown out because of the length of the barrel (a silly loophole, but whatever). That's not something that would have been obvious to the cops. But I see your point. IDing him might not have prevented anything.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9598
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #91 on: November 19, 2021, 10:23:57 PM »
Ok, I was mistaken that he traveled with the weapon. It doesn't functionally change the argument that he was acting as a vigilante. He was expecting violence, he was there to protect a car dealership, he had a deadly weapon. Is any of that not factual?

Dude was there during daylight hours that same day cleaning graffiti off walls from the "protest" and picking up litter. In what sense was he acting as a vigilante or expecting violence? He was there for a normal work shift (or more) just doing normal things until the pedo snapped and went after him, which triggered the ensemble.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #92 on: November 19, 2021, 10:35:13 PM »
Ok, I was mistaken that he traveled with the weapon. It doesn't functionally change the argument that he was acting as a vigilante. He was expecting violence, he was there to protect a car dealership, he had a deadly weapon. Is any of that not factual?

Dude was there during daylight hours that same day cleaning graffiti off walls from the "protest" and picking up litter. In what sense was he acting as a vigilante or expecting violence? He was there for a normal work shift (or more) just doing normal things until the pedo snapped and went after him, which triggered the ensemble.

I read he did grab his gun and mentioned something about protecting a business he was familiar with but even then, he did a whole lot of things not remotely vigilante like until the confrontation happened.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #93 on: November 19, 2021, 11:39:56 PM »
Ok, I was mistaken that he traveled with the weapon. It doesn't functionally change the argument that he was acting as a vigilante. He was expecting violence, he was there to protect a car dealership, he had a deadly weapon. Is any of that not factual?

Having a deadly weapon isn't representative of "acting as a vigilante". I have a deadly weapon pretty often. A lot of people do. Are there a bunch of crypto-vigilantes running out there right now? And of course he was expecting violence, it was a riot, people were setting things on fire. What was he supposed to do, expect a kind and orderly group of good people on their way to church?

So? How is a law like this supposed to be enforced if cops aren't IDing people who look like minors and are carrying a weapon?

Even if the cops did ask for ID, so what? It's not against the law for a 17 year old to open carry a rifle in Wisconsin, which is why the charge was thrown out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/29/fact-check-video-police-thanked-kyle-rittenhouse-gave-him-water/5661804002/

Those police and their dastardly *checks notes* giving people water.

The charge was thrown out because of the length of the barrel (a silly loophole, but whatever). That's not something that would have been obvious to the cops. But I see your point. IDing him might not have prevented anything.

An AR-15 having a long barrel is absolutely considered obvious.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2021, 11:41:34 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2371
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #94 on: November 20, 2021, 02:32:28 AM »
The charge was thrown out because of the length of the barrel (a silly loophole, but whatever). That's not something that would have been obvious to the cops. But I see your point. IDing him might not have prevented anything.

An AR-15 having a long barrel is absolutely considered obvious.

Not that it matters, but the gun thing was a little murky all along. When the defense first asked to dismiss the gun charge, it was denied:

"The wording is hardly straightforward (Of the 2011 statute in question). Schroeder (Judge) himself said he was confused about it when Richards (Defense) first asked him to toss the possession charge out earlier this year."

The statute says something about a barrel less than 16 inches, if so minors are not allowed to possess. The AR-15 in question had a 16" barrel. The statute is kind of wacky and has been revised many times. Now it includes a provision against minor's possession of throwing stars and nun-chucks...? Bizarre.

So would a cop, under the circumstances, in that environment, and given WI's open carry laws, stop a person to check ID and barrel length? No, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be SOP.

                                                         

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2634
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #95 on: November 20, 2021, 05:14:45 AM »


MSM in America is rotten to the core.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2021, 05:16:49 AM by Fortuna »

*

Online Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #96 on: November 20, 2021, 08:15:35 PM »
This punk is a product of the mainstream media. He sat in his bedroom of his mom's house polishing that rifle, watching action movies, dreaming of being a cop, getting hopped up on Fox News. Despite the law, despite self defense, the only reason those people are dead is because he took his weapon and hit the streets. I don't believe he saved any lives or did any good by leaving his house that night. The pictures of him dressed as an action hero that night says it all.

I own guns, I have a conceal carry permit. Everyone in my extended family for three generations owns guns. I am here to tell you that this is a sickness and I've seen it before over and over. These militant freaks, open carry assholes are an embarrassment to what it is to posses a weapon. People who openly carry sidearms while not being an on duty cop or active duty military are offensive.

And before the conservatard snowflakes start whining about the 2nd Amendment, The 2nd Amendment says nothing about individual gun rights. The citizens have a right to bear arms in the form of a well regulated militia as a balance of power against the Feds. It doesn't mean some punk gets to wander the streets at night with a rifle.

And speaking of which, we had a 17 year old kid wandering the streets at night with a rifle in a neighboring municipality. The cops surrounded him, ordered him to drop the weapon and he said, "huh?" He died in a hail of gunfire. Yep, he was black.

It's a good thing we don't have any of those militant freaks around here.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #97 on: November 20, 2021, 09:29:50 PM »
This punk is a product of the mainstream media. He sat in his bedroom of his mom's house polishing that rifle, watching action movies, dreaming of being a cop, getting hopped up on Fox News. Despite the law, despite self defense, the only reason those people are dead is because he took his weapon and hit the streets. I don't believe he saved any lives or did any good by leaving his house that night. The pictures of him dressed as an action hero that night says it all.

I own guns, I have a conceal carry permit. Everyone in my extended family for three generations owns guns. I am here to tell you that this is a sickness and I've seen it before over and over. These militant freaks, open carry assholes are an embarrassment to what it is to posses a weapon. People who openly carry sidearms while not being an on duty cop or active duty military are offensive.

And before the conservatard snowflakes start whining about the 2nd Amendment, The 2nd Amendment says nothing about individual gun rights. The citizens have a right to bear arms in the form of a well regulated militia as a balance of power against the Feds. It doesn't mean some punk gets to wander the streets at night with a rifle.

And speaking of which, we had a 17 year old kid wandering the streets at night with a rifle in a neighboring municipality. The cops surrounded him, ordered him to drop the weapon and he said, "huh?" He died in a hail of gunfire. Yep, he was black.

It's a good thing we don't have any of those militant freaks around here.
You have no  evidence he was polishing the rifle in his mom's house.

Just another lie.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13676
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #98 on: November 20, 2021, 09:36:51 PM »
And before the conservatard snowflakes start whining about the 2nd Amendment, The 2nd Amendment says nothing about individual gun rights. The citizens have a right to bear arms in the form of a well regulated militia as a balance of power against the Feds. It doesn't mean some punk gets to wander the streets at night with a rifle.
I'm not sure that quite aligns with the actual state of the law. Perhaps you could point towards some precedent of the 2nd Amendment being interpreted this way by US courts?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Online Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #99 on: November 20, 2021, 10:22:15 PM »
And before the conservatard snowflakes start whining about the 2nd Amendment, The 2nd Amendment says nothing about individual gun rights. The citizens have a right to bear arms in the form of a well regulated militia as a balance of power against the Feds. It doesn't mean some punk gets to wander the streets at night with a rifle.
I'm not sure that quite aligns with the actual state of the law. Perhaps you could point towards some precedent of the 2nd Amendment being interpreted this way by US courts?

The Supreme Court has fucked up time and time again over the years. They fucked up when they expanded the 2nd Amendment to individuals just like when they gave corporations the same rights as voters and supported racial segregation.

Read the actual text of the 2nd Amendment.

 
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...