The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Action80 on November 09, 2021, 08:24:24 PM
-
Yes, the lying pos liberal scumbag admits he was shot because he had pointed a gun at Rittenhouse:
https://youtu.be/eAJD9x84bkk
-
TIL telling the truth makes you a liar.
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
-
The prosecution has rested and shown nothing compelling to prove his guilt and many people are saying they have been helpful to the defense. He isn’t getting convicted on any homicide charges. Probably some misdemeanor gun charges and that’s it.
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
-
Yeah there were witnesses the prosecution called that said they feared for Kyle’s life when the skateboard was being used as a weapon. There is no way he should be convicted of homicide.
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.
But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.
But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.
-
This guy would be done for had nearly the entire incident not been videotaped. The video evidence is going to end up exonerating Rittenhouse entirely. I don't think any of the prosecution witnesses helped argue for guilt and I'm surprised that this went to trial at all. Embarrassing waste of justice system finances and a testament to the ridiculous nature of modern media.
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.
But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.
Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:
Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped (https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/kyle-rittenhouse-defense-again-tries-fails-to-get-gun-possession-charge-dropped/article_ffc2241b-2b71-5a1a-a863-838837ee1a8b.html)
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."
An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.
Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.
-
I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened. Especially when that threat comes from antagonizing people who are already angry as hell at something.
So basically: next time a Jan 6 type protest happens, grab your gun and head down, its open season.
-
I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened.
The caveat being that you must have white skin
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.
But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.
Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:
Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped (https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/kyle-rittenhouse-defense-again-tries-fails-to-get-gun-possession-charge-dropped/article_ffc2241b-2b71-5a1a-a863-838837ee1a8b.html)
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."
An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.
Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.
Apparently, the word rifle escapes you. Apparently, you don't know the barrel length of an AR-15.
-
I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened. Especially when that threat comes from antagonizing people who are already angry as hell at something.
So basically: next time a Jan 6 type protest happens, grab your gun and head down, its open season.
First, perhaps if "we," refers to the mouse you have in your pocket, you might be correct, but granting the mouse some aspect of intelligence, I'll go with the idea you're wrong as usual.
You see, Rittenhouse had justification for his feelings. You don't.
I encourage you to come back and participate.
Please.
-
I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened. Especially when that threat comes from antagonizing people who are already angry as hell at something.
So basically: next time a Jan 6 type protest happens, grab your gun and head down, its open season.
I encourage you to come back and participate.
Please.
Of course.
I'm white so I can kill as many conservative traitors as I want and claim self defense. :)
I mean 'it was a mob! I was afraid for my life while wanting to defend our nation's capital as a private citizen. I had no choice but to fire all 100 rounds I had with me.
-
I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened. Especially when that threat comes from antagonizing people who are already angry as hell at something.
So basically: next time a Jan 6 type protest happens, grab your gun and head down, its open season.
I encourage you to come back and participate.
Please.
Of course.
I'm white so I can kill as many conservative traitors as I want and claim self defense. :)
I mean 'it was a mob! I was afraid for my life while wanting to defend our nation's capital as a private citizen. I had no choice but to fire all 100 rounds I had with me.
Fantastic! Pleased to see such a high level of commitment in writing. Maybe I'll see you there!
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.
But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
The two dead shitbags, one was going for Rittenhouse's rifle, the other actively trying to kill him with the skateboard.
They got exactly what they had coming to them.
-
They got exactly what they had coming to them.
Well of course. They live in America. That sorry episode is evidence of what the country is devolving to
Sucks to live in America right now. Once the greatest nation now no better than the lawless jungles of Central America or Africa. Fantastic
If only we could get a President to make America great again. Oh well
-
They got exactly what they had coming to them.
Well of course. They live in America. That sorry episode is evidence of what the country is devolving to
Sucks to live in America right now. Once the greatest nation now no better than the lawless jungles of Central America or Africa. Fantastic
If only we could get a President to make America great again. Oh well
Actually, more people are still clamoring to make America their home than any other place on the flat earth plane, especially that current prison colony out in the ocean you call home.
What happened in Kenosha is a prime example of what happens to people who think and act like idiot Australians and try to propagate that shit line of thinking here in the US.
-
They got exactly what they had coming to them.
Well of course. They live in America. That sorry episode is evidence of what the country is devolving to
Sucks to live in America right now. Once the greatest nation now no better than the lawless jungles of Central America or Africa. Fantastic
If only we could get a President to make America great again. Oh well
Actually, more people are still clamoring to make America their home than any other place on the flat earth plane, especially that current prison colony out in the ocean you call home.
What happened in Kenosha is a prime example of what happens to people who think and act like idiot Australians and try to propagate that shit line of thinking here in the US.
Romanticing about when America really was great and filled with opportunity. But those days are over. A bitterly polarised oligarch society where you rank very low among the OECD in terms of education. Of course your political parties want you to remain dimwitted - it's the only way they won't be held accountable for their lies because the populous is unable to think critically. Not that it matters to migrants that you literally depend on to take in to get anything that requires intelligence done. America would be rack and ruin already if not for your H-1B visa system lol
This saga with Kyle and those he killed is just the start. Your society is spiralling the shitter. These events will only become more common place and more hostile. God bless America lololol. If God existed its safe to say he gave up giving a damn about you guys.
Kyle being innocent or guilty was never the point. The point is your society and lifestyle fosters this shit to happen in the first place. There's a reason no one was really shocked it happened.
-
I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened. Especially when that threat comes from antagonizing people who are already angry as hell at something.
So basically: next time a Jan 6 type protest happens, grab your gun and head down, its open season.
I encourage you to come back and participate.
Please.
Of course.
I'm white so I can kill as many conservative traitors as I want and claim self defense. :)
I mean 'it was a mob! I was afraid for my life while wanting to defend our nation's capital as a private citizen. I had no choice but to fire all 100 rounds I had with me.
Fantastic! Pleased to see such a high level of commitment in writing. Maybe I'll see you there!
Of course! Who wouldn't defend themselves from a violent mob? Like a woman climbing through a window to bypass a barricade. ;)
-
They got exactly what they had coming to them.
Well of course. They live in America. That sorry episode is evidence of what the country is devolving to
Sucks to live in America right now. Once the greatest nation now no better than the lawless jungles of Central America or Africa. Fantastic
If only we could get a President to make America great again. Oh well
Actually, more people are still clamoring to make America their home than any other place on the flat earth plane, especially that current prison colony out in the ocean you call home.
What happened in Kenosha is a prime example of what happens to people who think and act like idiot Australians and try to propagate that shit line of thinking here in the US.
Romanticing about when America really was great and filled with opportunity. But those days are over. A bitterly polarised oligarch society where you rank very low among the OECD in terms of education. Of course your political parties want you to remain dimwitted - it's the only way they won't be held accountable for their lies because the populous is unable to think critically. Not that it matters to migrants that you literally depend on to take in to get anything that requires intelligence done. America would be rack and ruin already if not for your H-1B visa system lol
This saga with Kyle and those he killed is just the start. Your society is spiralling the shitter. These events will only become more common place and more hostile. God bless America lololol. If God existed its safe to say he gave up giving a damn about you guys.
Kyle being innocent or guilty was never the point. The point is your society and lifestyle fosters this shit to happen in the first place. There's a reason no one was really shocked it happened.
Who gives a rat's ass about what some fascist website thinks about the US?
Answer = people who like to promulgate fascism.
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.
But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.
Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:
Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped (https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/kyle-rittenhouse-defense-again-tries-fails-to-get-gun-possession-charge-dropped/article_ffc2241b-2b71-5a1a-a863-838837ee1a8b.html)
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."
An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.
Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.
Apparently, the word rifle escapes you. Apparently, you don't know the barrel length of an AR-15.
Apparently you don't understand sentence structure:
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
"or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle"
"or short-barreled shotgun"
"or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."
"Or" not "and".
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.[/i]
"The AR-15 is the most popular self-loading rifle in the country."
https://www.everydaymarksman.co/equipment/buying-your-first-ar-15/
See: "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle" - No barrel length designation required.
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.
But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.
Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:
Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped (https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/kyle-rittenhouse-defense-again-tries-fails-to-get-gun-possession-charge-dropped/article_ffc2241b-2b71-5a1a-a863-838837ee1a8b.html)
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."
An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.
Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.
Apparently, the word rifle escapes you. Apparently, you don't know the barrel length of an AR-15.
Apparently you don't understand sentence structure:
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
"or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle"
"or short-barreled shotgun"
"or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."
"Or" not "and".
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.[/i]
"The AR-15 is the most popular self-loading rifle in the country."
https://www.everydaymarksman.co/equipment/buying-your-first-ar-15/
See: "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle" - No barrel length designation required.
Nice try.
A short barreled rifle doesn't refer to a shotgun.
Take some more language courses then get back to us.
-
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.
It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard
When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.
But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.
Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:
Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped (https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/kyle-rittenhouse-defense-again-tries-fails-to-get-gun-possession-charge-dropped/article_ffc2241b-2b71-5a1a-a863-838837ee1a8b.html)
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."
An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.
Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.
Apparently, the word rifle escapes you. Apparently, you don't know the barrel length of an AR-15.
Apparently you don't understand sentence structure:
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
"or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle"
"or short-barreled shotgun"
"or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."
"Or" not "and".
"These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle"
An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.[/i]
"The AR-15 is the most popular self-loading rifle in the country."
https://www.everydaymarksman.co/equipment/buying-your-first-ar-15/
See: "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle" - No barrel length designation required.
Nice try.
A short barreled rifle doesn't refer to a shotgun.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.
What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.
-
My dudes, did you know you can remove quotes from a quoted reply so that you don't have a quote tree taking up 90% of everyone's screen space?
Please see: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5485.0
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial
It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial
It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol
I don't know. The lawyers in a trial have a job to do. They've got to work with what they have. If they have basically nothing then they end up doing some rather embarrassing things.
It's like the Derek Chauvin trial where the defense tried to make the case that George Floyd could have died from carbon monoxide poisoning from the cop car in an outside environment where no one can say if that car was even running at the time.
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial
It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol
I don't know. The lawyers in a trial have a job to do. They've got to work with what they have. If they have basically nothing then they end up doing some rather embarrassing things.
It's like the Derek Chauvin trial where the defense tried to make the case that George Floyd could have died from carbon monoxide poisoning from the cop car in an outside environment where no one can say if that car was even running at the time.
That’s bull shit. The defense has a duty to their client to zealously defend them whereas the prosecution can drop the charges. No one is forcing the prosecutor to try and violate the defendants constitutional rights. No one is forcing them to call witnesses that corroborate the defenses story.
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial
It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol
In my very objective and unique opinion, the prosecutor was somehow coerced into going through with prosecuting a case he almost certainly knew wouldn't win.
-
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wisconsin-so-vigilantism-n1283383
I'll admit that the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me uncomfortable, largely because based on the video evidence I don't see how the actual violence that took place couldn't be considered self-defense. 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?
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.
-
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wisconsin-so-vigilantism-n1283383
I'll admit that the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me uncomfortable, largely because based on the video evidence I don't see how the actual violence that took place couldn't be considered self-defense. 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?
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.
I think that the issue is that it falls in that grey area between accountability and justice. Accountability would be Rittenhouse receiving some sort of punishment for his actions. However, we don't dispense justice like that, we base justice on if laws were broken. And most of the time these two align fairly well. Cases like this don't sit well because Rittenhouse's actions directly lead to the deaths of people. Will there be accountability for theses actions? Maybe! The courts will see if any laws were broken and sentence accordingly.
It's much like the Breonna Taylor situation. Do you know why almost all the cops got off without penalty from the massively bungled operation? It's because it was deemed that they didn't break any laws. With the exclusion of the one officer that shot wildly through Taylor's apartment and into the next. No-knock warrants were legal. Trying to apprehend a suspect while said suspect is already in custody? Not illegal. Returning fire on a civilian is also completely legal for an officer in the line of duty. Firing blindly into an adjacent apartment though? Totally illegal and we can be thankful that the national attention will ensure a trial.
We feel like there should be accountability for these underprepared officers whose neglectful actions lead to the death of an innocent woman, but instead we get the cold, unwieldy gavel of justice bludgeoning its way though our legal system the best it can.
-
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.
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? 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.
Accountability would be Rittenhouse receiving some sort of punishment for his actions.
Accountable for what actions, exactly? We must be watching two different videos, because as I see it, Rittenhouse did absolutely nothing wrong. He fulfilled his duty to flee. He only shot people who physically assaulted him or pointed a gun at him. Here's an idea: don't assault or threaten people with guns, you will get shot.
Famous last words of child rapist Rosenbaum before he died: "shoot me, nigga!" He wasn't black, by the way. So Rittenhouse killed a racist rapist that was attacking him. How sad, how horrible, society is so much worse off because of this. Where's the justice? lmao.
It's much like the Breonna Taylor situation.
No, it isn't, lmao. Breonna Taylor didn't get shot after attacking other people.
-
Accountable for what actions, exactly? We must be watching two different videos, because as I see it, Rittenhouse did absolutely nothing wrong. He fulfilled his duty to flee. He only shot people who physically assaulted him or pointed a gun at him. Here's an idea: don't assault or threaten people with guns, you will get shot.
Famous last words of child rapist Rosenbaum before he died: "shoot me, nigga!" He wasn't black, by the way. So Rittenhouse killed a racist rapist that was attacking him. How sad, how horrible, society is so much worse off because of this. Where's the justice? lmao.
It's much like the Breonna Taylor situation.
No, it isn't, lmao. Breonna Taylor didn't get shot after attacking other people.
idk, I just opine about things on the internet. Sometimes I make shit up and sometimes I parrot whatever NPR says and pray it looks like my own original viewpoint.
-
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wisconsin-so-vigilantism-n1283383
I'll admit that the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me uncomfortable, largely because based on the video evidence I don't see how the actual violence that took place couldn't be considered self-defense. 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?
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.
I understand that. It has parallels to the Derek Chauvin case. A lot of people were outraged at the verdict because they really liked cops.
I'm not uncomfortable with the likely outcome though. I'm actually really glad that in situations of life and death our system of justice actually appeared to work like it should.
-
Famous last words of child rapist Rosenbaum before he died: "shoot me, nigga!" He wasn't black, by the way. So Rittenhouse killed a racist rapist that was attacking him. How sad, how horrible, society is so much worse off because of this. Where's the justice? lmao.
You know that none of this is relevant to the case at hand. Rosenbaum clearly wasn't trying to rape anyone or commit a hate crime. Murder trials are not settled on the question of "but was the victim a good person tho."
-
"but was the victim a good person tho."
What victim?
-
Famous last words of child rapist Rosenbaum before he died: "shoot me, nigga!" He wasn't black, by the way. So Rittenhouse killed a racist rapist that was attacking him. How sad, how horrible, society is so much worse off because of this. Where's the justice? lmao.
You know that none of this is relevant to the case at hand. Rosenbaum clearly wasn't trying to rape anyone or commit a hate crime. Murder trials are not settled on the question of "but was the victim a good person tho."
Of course it's relevant. There's a very good reason why character witnesses are so often used in court: the jury's feelings about people differ. Rosenbaum was a deranged child rapist and is more likely to try to assault someone he deems weak enough to do so. However, he realized that raping people with guns is a lot tougher to do and died while contemplating his newfound life lesson.
I'm glad he's dead. He deserved it and the man who killed him deserves to walk free.
-
You hating a rapist is not the same as it being relevant to a self-defense argument where the shooter had no idea they shot a rapist.
-
You hating a rapist is not the same as it being relevant to a self-defense argument where the shooter had no idea they shot a rapist.
The fact that he was a rapist (five times, even) constitutes a certain behavior pattern. It makes the idea that Rosenbaum wasn't an aggressive lunatic far tougher to believe and therefore makes self-defense that much more likely.
A person's background sets the tone for their character.
-
You hating a rapist is not the same as it being relevant to a self-defense argument where the shooter had no idea they shot a rapist.
The fact that he was a rapist (five times, even) constitutes a certain behavior pattern. It makes the idea that Rosenbaum wasn't an aggressive lunatic far tougher to believe and therefore makes self-defense that much more likely.
A person's background sets the tone for their character.
I’m not 100% sure, but I thought I read that the dead guy’s prior convictions could not be introduced in the trial. There was a motion from the defense to do so but I think it was denied. If so, however much of a monster that guy was, his priors would have been irrelevant in this trial.
-
I’m not 100% sure, but I thought I read that the dead guy’s prior convictions could not be introduced in the trial. There was a motion from the defense to do so but I think it was denied.
Precisely because they knew it'd affect the jury's opinion of him. If I were on the jury and I knew he'd killed a child rapist, I'd vote not guilty, whether it were self-defense or not.
If so, however much of a monster that guy was, his priors would have been irrelevant in this trial.
Nice opinion.
-
I’m not 100% sure, but I thought I read that the dead guy’s prior convictions could not be introduced in the trial. There was a motion from the defense to do so but I think it was denied.
Precisely because they knew it'd affect the jury's opinion of him. If I were on the jury and I knew he'd killed a child rapist, I'd vote not guilty, whether it were self-defense or not.
Exactly. It unfairly prejudices the jury. His history in this case, has nothing to do with the events under investigation.
If so, however much of a monster that guy was, his priors would have been irrelevant in this trial.
Nice opinion.
The judge’s opinion, apparently.
-
I’m not 100% sure, but I thought I read that the dead guy’s prior convictions could not be introduced in the trial. There was a motion from the defense to do so but I think it was denied.
Precisely because they knew it'd affect the jury's opinion of him. If I were on the jury and I knew he'd killed a child rapist, I'd vote not guilty, whether it were self-defense or not.
And here we see the exact reason why a prior conviction would not be allowed to be introduced in a trial.
-
Exactly. It unfairly prejudices the jury. His history in this case, has nothing to do with the events under investigation.
But his history does have everything to do with this case. Are you even reading my posts? The point of the case is to show that he was a violent aggressor and Rittenhouse had to defend himself. That the man has a history of violence is obviously relevant. His violent personality got him killed (deservedly).
And here we see the exact reason why a prior conviction would not be allowed to be introduced in a trial.
It's not a good reason.
-
The fact that he was a rapist (five times, even)
He died doing what he loved.
-
Exactly. It unfairly prejudices the jury. His history in this case, has nothing to do with the events under investigation.
But his history does have everything to do with this case. Are you even reading my posts? The point of the case is to show that he was a violent aggressor and Rittenhouse had to defend himself. That the man has a history of violence is obviously relevant. His violent personality got him killed (deservedly).
And here we see the exact reason why a prior conviction would not be allowed to be introduced in a trial.
It's not a good reason.
Are you saying it's okay for civilians to kill people if they've done sufficiently bad things in their past?
Do you disagree with the idea of the state's monopoly on violence?
-
Exactly. It unfairly prejudices the jury. His history in this case, has nothing to do with the events under investigation.
But his history does have everything to do with this case. Are you even reading my posts?
Muh muh muh muh
The point of the case is to show that he was a violent aggressor and Rittenhouse had to defend himself.
Talking about an event in the past doesn’t show that he was a violent aggressor. It shows that he maybe had the capacity to be the aggressor.
That the man has a history of violence is obviously relevant.
And a Judge disagreed with you. Perhaps you should consider a law degree from somewhere other than… checks notes The Flat Earth Society.
His violent personality got him killed (deservedly).
Sure.
It's not a good reason.
It for sure is. That’s why the judge decided differently than you.
-
If so, however much of a monster that guy was, his priors would have been irrelevant in this trial.
Nice opinion.
As Rama mentioned, not my opinion, the judge's:
Kenosha County judge denies prosecutor's request to use evidence of Kyle Rittenhouse's mindset in trial (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/09/17/kenosha-county-judge-denies-series-motions-kyle-rittenhouse-case/8380214002/)
The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse case on Friday denied prosecutors' requests to use so-called "other acts" evidence they argue shows the teen's inclination to act like a vigilante, and would reveal his state of mind to jurors.
Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder also rejected a defense request to introduce evidence that one of Rittenhouse's victims was a convicted pedophile.
-
The opinion of the judge is just that, an opinion, and I'm stating that my opinion is different and that I disagree with the judge. Regardless, with or without the additional character evidence, it's obvious Rosenbaum was the aggressor and got what was coming to him. One more degenerate deleted from society.
Are you saying it's okay for civilians to kill people if they've done sufficiently bad things in their past?
I would agree that's the case but that's not the argument I'm making here. My argument is that a person with a past trend of aggression is more likely to act aggressive again in the future.
Do you disagree with the idea of the state's monopoly on violence?
I don't think the state should exist at all but that's another discussion entirely and doesn't belong here. ;)
-
The opinion of the judge is just that, an opinion, and I'm stating that my opinion is different and that I disagree with the judge. Regardless, with or without the additional character evidence, it's obvious Rosenbaum was the aggressor and got what was coming to him. One more degenerate deleted from society.
Nice opinion.
-
Regardless, with or without the additional character evidence, it's obvious Rosenbaum was the aggressor and got what was coming to him.
This is what wrong with America today. Do you really believe behaving like a pork chop warrants the death penalty? And that regular citizens can dole it out without any reprisal? Yeah, just flap the judicial system off. Who needs it. Everyone in America has a gun so everyone should be able to enact justice as they see fit ::)
-
Do you really believe behaving like a pork chop warrants the death penalty?
Describing a psychopathic rapist chasing after someone with a gun saying "shoot me, nigga!" and then grabbing the muzzle of the gun as "behaving like a pork chop" is a level of spin that should earn you a position at CNN. I'm getting the feeling that you're yet another person who has yet to bother actually watching the damn videos before commenting on them.
And that regular citizens can dole it out without any reprisal? Yeah, just flap the judicial system off. Who needs it. Everyone in America has a gun so everyone should be able to enact justice as they see fit ::)
The judicial system is probably about to find that he didn't do anything wrong, so I don't see the point of this line of discussion. Rosenbaum is a classic case of "fuck around and find out". Don't chase people with guns and try to take their gun away, folks, you will get shot to death and then anyone diligent enough to actually watch a video of the incident will say you deserved it.
You are responsible for your actions. Rosenbaum took responsibility for his actions to the tune of 4 rounds of 5.56. I'm just laughing at the karmic justice of a rapist chasing a kid around only to get his pelvis shattered shortly before death.
-
You are responsible for your actions. Rosenbaum took responsibility for his actions to the tune of 4 rounds of 5.56. I'm just laughing at the karmic justice of a rapist chasing a kid around only to get his pelvis shattered shortly before death.
Just to summarize, your opinion is that:
- The judge was wrong to disallow Rosenbaums priors
- Rosenbaum deserved to be killed
Further speculating that maybe your opinion is as well that:
- The skateboard wielding guy deserved to be killed
- The gun-wielding guy who got shot in the arm should have been killed
Seems like almost everyone got what they wanted and/or deserved. If so, fair enough, strong opinions you have.
My thing is with the cops. Pure speculation and opinion here - But I wonder what the cops who rolled up on Rittenhouse and co and offered them water and thanked them for their service would have done if instead of the white militia group there, it was a black militia group there. A bunch of black dudes, breaking curfew, in tactical gear with AR-15's strapped to their chests. I wonder if they would have been given water and thanked for their service?
-
Just to summarize, your opinion is that:
- The judge was wrong to disallow Rosenbaums priors
- Rosenbaum deserved to be killed
Yes.
Further speculating that maybe your opinion is as well that:
- The skateboard wielding guy deserved to be killed
- The gun-wielding guy who got shot in the arm should have been killed
Seems like almost everyone got what they wanted and/or deserved. If so, fair enough, strong opinions you have.
Yes. If anything, gun-wielding man got off the easiest. He faked a surrender to lull Rittenhouse into a false sense of security and then tried to shoot him anyway. Getting away with only part of his arm blown off was too easy in my hot opinion. Gaige had a hero complex and it should have cost him his life.
My thing is with the cops. Pure speculation and opinion here - But I wonder what the cops who rolled up on Rittenhouse and co and offered them water and thanked them for their service would have done if instead of the white militia group there, it was a black militia group there. A bunch of black dudes, breaking curfew, in tactical gear with AR-15's strapped to their chests. I wonder if they would have been given water and thanked for their service?
I wonder if Rosenbaum would have chased a black man around and said "shoot me, nigga!". We'll never know.
-
I wonder if Rosenbaum would have chased a black man around and said "shoot me, nigga!". We'll never know.
Bipolar, off his meds, just got out of the hospital that day for suicidal tendencies, past horrific behavior. Yes, I believe he would have.
-
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/gov-evers-deploys-national-guard-to-kenosha-ahead-of-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-decision/2683456/
Ah yes, the classic "prepare for the riots due to declaring the wrong verdict in court".
-
Guys.
Its a clear cut case of self defense.
The question courts need to answer is if self defense has limits.
Ex: if I goad someome into trying to kill me, do I have a right of self defense? If no, where is that line?
Like if I tell someone I'm gonna go pull out my gun and kill everyone in a room and you try to stop me with deadly force, can I legally defend myself and call it self defense?
If I walk into a gang hangout and tell them I'm gonna fuck them up, can I claim self defense if I kill some of them? (Assuming I survive obviously)
If I wave my gun around outside walmart(in an open carry state) can I claim self defense if someone thinks I'm a threat and tries to stop me?
-
I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.
What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.
Possession charges DISMISSED, clearly demonstrating your hot takes and pontificating about this issue was from a position of intellectual bankruptcy.
https://youtu.be/1Th75_hQs2Q
-
Guys.
Its a clear cut case of self defense.
The question courts need to answer is if self defense has limits.
Ex: if I goad someome into trying to kill me, do I have a right of self defense? If no, where is that line?
Like if I tell someone I'm gonna go pull out my gun and kill everyone in a room and you try to stop me with deadly force, can I legally defend myself and call it self defense?
If I walk into a gang hangout and tell them I'm gonna fuck them up, can I claim self defense if I kill some of them? (Assuming I survive obviously)
If I wave my gun around outside walmart(in an open carry state) can I claim self defense if someone thinks I'm a threat and tries to stop me?
Wtf are you going on about?
You think none of these issues have been codified already?
Just aimless, pointless ramblings, having nothing to do with the current situation.
-
I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.
What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.
Possession charges DISMISSED, clearly demonstrating your hot takes and pontificating about this issue was from a position of intellectual bankruptcy.
https://youtu.be/1Th75_hQs2Q
All I said is that the judge didn't initially throw out the charge. Then I went on to say, "I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges."
Personally, I think the only questionable is the skateboarder killing. Rosenbaum I could see as self-defense holding. The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun and pointed it at him. So that seems pretty clear cut self-defense. The skateboarder? Don't know. But all told, it looks like it's leaning toward self-defense for all three (or all 5 counts still in play).
I guess the only other question I have is the NRA's whole "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." thing. Did the guy with the gun who got shot in the arm think he was a good guy with a gun trying to stop an active shooter, a bad guy with a gun? Our gun laws are so screwed up.
-
I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.
What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.
Possession charges DISMISSED, clearly demonstrating your hot takes and pontificating about this issue was from a position of intellectual bankruptcy.
https://youtu.be/1Th75_hQs2Q
All I said is that the judge didn't initially throw out the charge. Then I went on to say, "I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges."
Personally, I think the only questionable is the skateboarder killing. Rosenbaum I could see as self-defense holding. The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun and pointed it at him. So that seems pretty clear cut self-defense. The skateboarder? Don't know. But all told, it looks like it's leaning toward self-defense for all three (or all 5 counts still in play).
I guess the only other question I have is the NRA's whole "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." thing. Did the guy with the gun who got shot in the arm think he was a good guy with a gun trying to stop an active shooter, a bad guy with a gun? Our gun laws are so screwed up.
No, you pretty much stated it was a given the charge would stick, offering your bogus and faulty interpretation of the law, thinking the judge's failure to not dismiss it earlier would somehow be the case at the end of the day.
I mean, you are quoted right here stating: "underage with a rifle=misdemeanor period." You don't know what the hell you're writing about and have no problem with writing bald faced lies when proven wrong.
Prevaricators typically have difficulty dealing the realities of life, offering bogus philosophical questions like you pose here, thinking they're somehow meaningful and relevant to the case whatsoever. In reality, the question offered is just another weak attempt to support a known shitbag who got what was coming to him.
100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from Rittenhouse.
-
I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.
What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.
Possession charges DISMISSED, clearly demonstrating your hot takes and pontificating about this issue was from a position of intellectual bankruptcy.
https://youtu.be/1Th75_hQs2Q
All I said is that the judge didn't initially throw out the charge. Then I went on to say, "I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges."
Personally, I think the only questionable is the skateboarder killing. Rosenbaum I could see as self-defense holding. The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun and pointed it at him. So that seems pretty clear cut self-defense. The skateboarder? Don't know. But all told, it looks like it's leaning toward self-defense for all three (or all 5 counts still in play).
I guess the only other question I have is the NRA's whole "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." thing. Did the guy with the gun who got shot in the arm think he was a good guy with a gun trying to stop an active shooter, a bad guy with a gun? Our gun laws are so screwed up.
No, you pretty much stated it was a given the charge would stick, offering your bogus and faulty interpretation of the law, thinking the judge's failure to not dismiss it earlier would somehow be the case at the end of the day.
The charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor was dropped Monday morning as jurors were waiting to hear closing arguments in Rittenhouse's trial.
Judge Bruce Schroeder said that it was unclear whether the rifle Rittenhouse used qualified under the Wisconsin statute, and the prosecutors in the case chose not to press their case on the single misdemeanor count.
Schroeder had earlier dismissed the defense's effort to get the charge thrown out, but on Monday said that he believed the statute was poorly written and was open to challenging the count, which carries a maximum possible sentence of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.
"I have big problems with this statute, I've made no bones about that from the beginning," the judge said.
Apparently, the Judge changed his mind about how the law was written. And yeah, I thought it would stick and was wrong. I also said it didn't matter because the charge is a whatever considering the other 5 charges - i.e., it didn't matter.
Prevaricators typically have difficulty dealing the realities of life, offering bogus philosophical questions like you pose here, thinking they're somehow meaningful and relevant to the case whatsoever. In reality, the question offered is just another weak attempt to support a known shitbag who got what was coming to him.
Why so hostile? I already said that I think the guy who pointed a gun at him and got shot in the arm, for Rittenhouse, seems like self-defense. I just wonder if the guy with the gun thought he was going after a bad guy.
100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from Rittenhouse.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. But it reads like you're offering a bogus philosophical question thinking that it's somehow meaningful and relevant to the case.
-
Apparently, the Judge changed his mind about how the law was written. And yeah, I thought it would stick and was wrong. I also said it didn't matter because the charge is a whatever considering the other 5 charges - i.e., it didn't matter.
All charges matter, obviously in a trial, and the prosecutor thought they mattered, and you thought it mattered.
The judge knew it was wrong and threw it out.
Prevaricators typically have difficulty dealing the realities of life, offering bogus philosophical questions like you pose here, thinking they're somehow meaningful and relevant to the case whatsoever. In reality, the question offered is just another weak attempt to support a known shitbag who got what was coming to him.
Why so hostile? I already said that I think the guy who pointed a gun at him and got shot in the arm, for Rittenhouse, seems like self-defense. I just wonder if the guy with the gun thought he was going after a bad guy.
Sticking up for a shitbag must be a favorite pastime of yours.
100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from Rittenhouse.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. But it reads like you're offering a bogus philosophical question thinking that it's somehow meaningful and relevant to the case.
I know you don't know what it means. You cannot even tell the difference between an obvious statement of fact (where no question mark is implied or explicitly written, such as what I wrote) and the utter tripe offered by you in post after post in response to this topic.
-
Apparently, the Judge changed his mind about how the law was written. And yeah, I thought it would stick and was wrong. I also said it didn't matter because the charge is a whatever considering the other 5 charges - i.e., it didn't matter.
All charges matter, obviously in a trial, and the prosecutor thought they mattered, and you thought it mattered.
The judge knew it was wrong and threw it out.
And the judge thought that it mattered until he didn't. He could have just dismissed it when the defense initially asked. But he didn't. Then he did. I guess he had to think about it and it took him a few weeks. Something you should try. Thinking about things.
Prevaricators typically have difficulty dealing the realities of life, offering bogus philosophical questions like you pose here, thinking they're somehow meaningful and relevant to the case whatsoever. In reality, the question offered is just another weak attempt to support a known shitbag who got what was coming to him.
Why so hostile? I already said that I think the guy who pointed a gun at him and got shot in the arm, for Rittenhouse, seems like self-defense. I just wonder if the guy with the gun thought he was going after a bad guy.
Sticking up for a shitbag must be a favorite pastime of yours.
Where am I sticking up for the guy? If you possessed even a smidge of reading comprehension skills you would have recognized this as not sticking up for the guy when I wrote, "The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun and pointed it at him. So that seems pretty clear cut self-defense." I'm just wondering what the guy with the gun was thinking.
100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from Rittenhouse.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. But it reads like you're offering a bogus philosophical question thinking that it's somehow meaningful and relevant to the case.
I know you don't know what it means. You cannot even tell the difference between an obvious statement of fact (where no question mark is implied or explicitly written, such as what I wrote) and the utter tripe offered by you in post after post in response to this topic.
An obvious statement of fact that is offering a bogus philosophical question thinking that it's somehow meaningful and relevant to the case. You might as well offer another incredible insight of yours like, 100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from the 2 guys who got killed and one guy who got shot.
-
The interesting thing about that third guy. Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there. But suppose the other guy drew quicker. Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.
It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is. If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
-
The interesting thing about that third guy. Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there. But suppose the other guy drew quicker. Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.
It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is. If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
It illustrates the other guy actually did draw quicker as he didn't get shot until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.
Just another disgusting example of your lousy, habitual style of revisionist history on the fly.
-
All closing arguments have been made. The jury will begin their deliberations tomorrow. Despite the shit show and (in my opinion) innocence of Rittenhouse, they could still find him guilty. We will see soon.
-
That's another weird thing about this trial. It's apparently not a pass or fail on the charges. It's kind of a sliding scale. They could find him guilty of murder. They could also find him guilty of j walking during self defense and everything in between.
-
The interesting thing about that third guy. Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there. But suppose the other guy drew quicker. Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.
It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is. If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
It illustrates the other guy actually did draw quicker as he didn't get shot until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.
I think you missed the point. If the 3rd guy had gotten off a shot before rittenhouse and killed him, his defense would be that he was staring down the barrel of an AR-15, felt his life was in danger, and shot in self-defense. That’s what I’m getting at with the good or bad guy with a gun. It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference.
I’m not defending the third guy. He was aiming a gun at the kid. Just curious as to what his motivation was. Did he think he was the good guy?
-
The interesting thing about that third guy. Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there. But suppose the other guy drew quicker. Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.
It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is. If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
It illustrates the other guy actually did draw quicker as he didn't get shot until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.
I think you missed the point. If the 3rd guy had gotten off a shot before rittenhouse and killed him, his defense would be that he was staring down the barrel of an AR-15, felt his life was in danger, and shot in self-defense. That’s what I’m getting at with the good or bad guy with a gun. It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference.
I’m not defending the third guy. He was aiming a gun at the kid. Just curious as to what his motivation was. Did he think he was the good guy?
It is only hard for a known liar to print the truth about this issue.
It is much easier for people who know the truth to be clear thinking and know a shitbag got shot.
-
The interesting thing about that third guy. Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there. But suppose the other guy drew quicker. Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.
It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is. If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
It illustrates the other guy actually did draw quicker as he didn't get shot until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.
I think you missed the point. If the 3rd guy had gotten off a shot before rittenhouse and killed him, his defense would be that he was staring down the barrel of an AR-15, felt his life was in danger, and shot in self-defense. That’s what I’m getting at with the good or bad guy with a gun. It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference.
I’m not defending the third guy. He was aiming a gun at the kid. Just curious as to what his motivation was. Did he think he was the good guy?
It is only hard for a known liar to print the truth about this issue.
It is much easier for people who know the truth to be clear thinking and know a shitbag got shot.
Yep, you definitely missed the point.
-
Defense moves for mistrial with prejudice:
https://youtu.be/CQqw8FEjNKE
-
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?
-
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?
A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?
-
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?
A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?
They win and no chance of appeal as well.
-
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?
A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?
They win and no chance of appeal as well.
Ah.
Yeah that does sound like a sweet deal.
-
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?
A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?
They win and no chance of appeal as well.
Ah.
Yeah that does sound like a sweet deal.
And one I imagine they feel they need given the fiasco this trial has been.
-
YouTube censoring the truth again smh...
-
The video was unsharable and I was fixing my comment, here's another video. NBC followed the jury bus and has been banned from the courtroom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmiHHCKn9E0&ab_channel=FOX6NewsMilwaukee
-
I just assumed YouTube actually did take it down. This is the world we live in.
-
On the notion of lacking guilt.
-
Not guilty on all counts
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Not guilcup!
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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
-
Rittenhouse was allowed to carry that rifle in WI. IDing him would have been a useless infringement.
-
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?
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?
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.
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/
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/b9OnewJ.png)
MSM in America is rotten to the core.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
The Supreme Court has fucked up time and time again over the years.
Ah, yes, the entire legal system is wrong, and only you (with your extensive qualifications in law) are correct. Truly a hallmark of good debate.
Read the actual text of the 2nd Amendment.
What does that have to do with anything in a case law/common law system?
Nonetheless:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/)
Which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" confuses you? Is it "people"? Or are you just hyperfocusing on the prefatory clause of that sentence?
-
You have no evidence he was polishing the rifle in his mom's house.
Just another lie.
So this punk, a product of the mainstream media, sat in his bedroom of his mom's house, studying algebra, doing his chores, watching action movies, dreaming of being a cop, getting hopped up on Fox News.
Right.
I'm entitled to my opinion and if it offends the right wing snowflakes that made this entitled, spoiled piece of shit their hero, I'm glad.
This affluenza ridden brat is the reason liberals don't want us to have guns.
-
The Supreme Court has fucked up time and time again over the years.
Ah, yes, the entire legal system is wrong, and only you (with your extensive qualifications in law) are correct. Truly a hallmark of good debate.
Read the actual text of the 2nd Amendment.
What does that have to do with anything in a case law/common law system?
Nonetheless:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/)
Which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" confuses you? Is it "people"? Or are you just hyperfocusing on the prefatory clause of that sentence?
I'm sorry, but I can't see this underage delinquent wandering around with a gun being part of the founding father's vision.
I didn't say the whole legal system is wrong, you're saying it's completely right.
The other kid with a gun didn't get a chance to discuss the constitution. It was within our rights to have law enforcement gun him down.
-
I'm sorry, but I can't see this underage delinquent wandering around with a gun being part of the founding father's vision.
Considering the Founding Father's (just one?) times, he would not be an "underage delinquent". He'd be a "man" by quite some margin. I'm not sure adding a lack of awareness of history to a terrible legal argument really helps your case.
I didn't say the whole legal system is wrong, you're saying it's completely right.
Don't try to strawman me. It will not work, and you'll just make yourself look sillier in the process. You said the following, word for word:
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about individual gun rights.
This is directly at odds both with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (you know, the thing that's legally binding) and with its literal text ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). Regardless of how much it affects your "snowflake" feelings, and regardless of how much you retcon what you mean by "the 2nd Amendment", you were incorrect.
The other kid with a gun didn't get a chance to discuss the constitution.
This is an interesting, if extremely amateurish, rhetorical device you're using there. "Someone else was subject to a grave injustice, therefore Rittenhouse should also be subjected to it." I'm sure you can see just how unhelpful that sounds. Speak truth to power and demand justice for the guy that got gunned down. Don't try to bring everyone else down to the level you consider unjust.
-
I'm sorry, but I can't see this underage delinquent wandering around with a gun being part of the founding father's vision.
Considering the Founding Father's (just one?) times, he would not be an "underage delinquent". He'd be a "man" by quite some margin. I'm not sure adding a lack of awareness of history to a terrible legal argument really helps your case.
I didn't say the whole legal system is wrong, you're saying it's completely right.
Don't try to strawman me. It will not work, and you'll just make yourself look sillier in the process. You said the following, word for word:
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about individual gun rights.
This is directly at odds both with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (you know, the thing that's legally binding) and with its literal text ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). Regardless of how much it affects your "snowflake" feelings, and regardless of how much you retcon what you mean by "the 2nd Amendment", you were incorrect.
The other kid with a gun didn't get a chance to discuss the constitution.
This is an interesting, if extremely amateurish, rhetorical device you're using there. "Someone else was subject to a grave injustice, therefore Rittenhouse should also be subjected to it." I'm sure you can see just how unhelpful that sounds. Speak truth to power and demand justice for the guy that got gunned down. Don't try to bring everyone else down to the level you consider unjust.
I applaud your parsing of my arguments (I don't care about looking silly and don't care about who's at my level.) I also don't care about people's judgements about my opinions, we're on a forum where people argue that the earth is flat.
The laws can be changed, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is bullshit. Gun violence is surging and I don't accept that we have to just live with it. I don't accept that more guns on the streets are going to make it better. I don't accept that when that punk took his gun and started walking the streets that there was anything righteous or patriotic about it. If it was legal that means the laws are fucked and need to be changed. I own guns and I can say whatever the legal system says about it, the current state of it is fucked.
In my town, we had a dozen people shot this weekend and it was a slow weekend. Perhaps, we need to advocate for broadening gun rights in your town.
Again, I'm sure your legal arguments will come back to my silliness or my reading comprehension but this situation is fucked up and needs action.
Did you know Russia was donating money to the NRA under the Trump administration? The NRA took the money because it's money. The Russian's gave the money for two reasons. So their spies Boris and Natasha could rub shoulders with high profile Republicans at the events. Also, it is in Russia's best interest to flood the streets of America with cheap accessible guns and the conservative movement is helping them do it.
I supported Republicans for decades but this idea that every freak in the street gets a gun is bullshit. I have to have a license for my dog, I have to have liability insurance for my car. Carrying a weapon may be a right but it should carry responsibility, just like owning a dog or driving a car. Fuck the Republicans, they are dead to me and it is my right to do everything I can to get them out of office.
BTW, this isn't about 'truth to power'. When a freak is wandering the streets with a gun, I want him taken out. I pay taxes so I don't have to be the one to do it.
-
[I] don't care about who's at my level.
You also seemingly don't care about reading comprehension.
The laws can be changed, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is bullshit.
This is entirely irrelevant to what you said so far. You made claims about what the 2nd Amendment does (or doesn't) say. Now you're saying you're simply against the 2nd Amendment. I agree with you on the latter. You're just completely incorrect on the former.
Again, I'm sure your legal arguments will come back to my silliness or my reading comprehension
Guilty as charged!
I supported Republicans for decades
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
BTW, this isn't about 'truth to power'. When a freak is wandering the streets with a gun, I want him taken out. I pay taxes so I don't have to be the one to do it.
I have no idea what you're talking about at this point, and I suspect neither do you.
-
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?
This is known.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment/Origins-and-historical-antecedents
On the crafting of the Second Amendment at the Constitutional Convention
It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And ... James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. ... The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.
The interpretation of the second amendment as some kind of hedge against tyranny is relatively recent. You can see why. We really don't want to admit that it's there to put down slave revolts. So we rebranded its intent.
It's also interesting to note that any time a large group of black people start exercising this right then conservatives start to get very reasonable very quickly regarding gun control.
-
I think this is the link that Dr. Van Nostrand wanted to link? Not sure why they took a hard left into crazy when info like this is readily available.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/politics-changed-the-reading-of-the-second-amendmentand-can-change-it-again/amp
-
The interpretation of the second amendment as some kind of hedge against tyranny is relatively recent. You can see why. We really don't want to admit that it's there to put down slave revolts. So we rebranded its intent.
Yes, the original intent was that every white man would be free to carry a gun. And boy, did they buy guns. And boy, did they use them.
The actual history is indeed much uglier than the Good Doctor portrayed it as - I held back on making crude jokes about how the black kid in his example wouldn't have gotten shot for carrying a gun if only white people carried guns, because I didn't think it would be helpful, because that reasoning was obscured from the actual text of the 2nd Amendment, and it's (prima facie) not present in modern case law. I'm not sure why you thought adding this to the discussion would help tbh - were you just trying to kick Dr. while he's down?
Nonetheless, there was never a period in the 2nd Amendment history when it solely applied to well-regulated groups of any sort, or when it disallowed [white, male] individuals from owning or carrying guns.
-
You have no evidence he was polishing the rifle in his mom's house.
Just another lie.
So this punk, a product of the mainstream media, sat in his bedroom of his mom's house, studying algebra, doing his chores, watching action movies, dreaming of being a cop, getting hopped up on Fox News.
Right.
I'm entitled to my opinion and if it offends the right wing snowflakes that made this entitled, spoiled piece of shit their hero, I'm glad.
This affluenza ridden brat is the reason liberals don't want us to have guns.
Seems like sour grapes.
-
I thought the original intent was as a reaction to british soldiers confiscating guns?
Just like how they used homes without permission.
-
I've always believed that idea of an armed citizenry defending liberty from our federal government was an absolutely delusional redneck fantasy. I need the federal government to have resources and weaponry to defend us from powerful nation states all over the world. I want a government that can defend us from extremist terror groups with technology and intelligence.
Our government is not going to fall to a bunch of bumpkins with hand guns and hunting rifles!
(https://www.reuters.com/resizer/JHILD0_duWCNsboD_fFu6Bo4VEc=/960x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/X6SSN46MRROJZIL6AFVQG5FPEA.jpg)
.... shit
-
I've always believed that idea of an armed citizenry defending liberty from our federal government was an absolutely delusional redneck fantasy. I need the federal government to have resources and weaponry to defend us from powerful nation states all over the world. I want a government that can defend us from extremist terror groups with technology and intelligence.
You mean the extremist terror groups it created?
-
I've always believed that idea of an armed citizenry defending liberty from our federal government was an absolutely delusional redneck fantasy. I need the federal government to have resources and weaponry to defend us from powerful nation states all over the world. I want a government that can defend us from extremist terror groups with technology and intelligence.
You mean the extremist terror groups it created?
Yeah... I guess it all changes when the government is an extremist terror group with technology and intelligence.
-
What alot of this year has shown is just how much America is like Trump:
Fragile, easy to anger, arrogant.
America was essentially grinded to a halt by a thousand, mostly unarmed, protesters.
America's healthcare system is wobbling due to a pandemic with only a 1% mortality rate.
Its press is untrusted by a large amount of Americans.
And people argue violently about getting a life saving vaccine because some person on the internet said it would kill them and they should take horse dewormer instead.
If China wants to destroy America, it wouldn't take much effort.
-
I've always believed that idea of an armed citizenry defending liberty from our federal government was an absolutely delusional redneck fantasy. I need the federal government to have resources and weaponry to defend us from powerful nation states all over the world. I want a government that can defend us from extremist terror groups with technology and intelligence.
Our government is not going to fall to a bunch of bumpkins with hand guns and hunting rifles!
(https://www.reuters.com/resizer/JHILD0_duWCNsboD_fFu6Bo4VEc=/960x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/X6SSN46MRROJZIL6AFVQG5FPEA.jpg)
.... shit
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
You're just weak liar.
-
There absolutely were people that were armed. Christopher Albert (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351686/download) was one such person.
-
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
You're just weak liar.
Fuck that. That piece of human shit, Trump, was going to send federal troops to my town to protect a Target store from protesters marching against a corrupt police force that has brutalized the people of this city for over a half century. They weren't armed either.
Every rioter in that photo is a traitor to this nation. The Republicans supporting Putin's agenda who opened the doors for these traitors are traitors. Fuck each and every one of those 'short bus retards' (their lawyer's words, not mine.)
Seems like sour grapes.
It's pissed off grapes. I owned guns when I was 17. The idea that my mom and dad would let me take one of my rifles and go into the streets at night is incomprehensible. This little fuck head's parents are the real problem. So fuck them too.
-
There absolutely were people that were armed. Christopher Albert (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351686/download) was one such person.
Outcome?
-
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
You're just weak liar.
Fuck that. That piece of human shit, Trump, was going to send federal troops to my town to protect a Target store from protesters marching against a corrupt police force that has brutalized the people of this city for over a half century. They weren't armed either.
Every rioter in that photo is a traitor to this nation. The Republicans supporting Putin's agenda who opened the doors for these traitors are traitors. Fuck each and every one of those 'short bus retards' (their lawyer's words, not mine.)
Seems like sour grapes.
It's pissed off grapes. I owned guns when I was 17. The idea that my mom and dad would let me take one of my rifles and go into the streets at night is incomprehensible. This little fuck head's parents are the real problem. So fuck them too.
Sour grapes from an ineffectual troll who has no point.
Rittenhouse killed two known shitbags and his trial ended in a just verdict.
His parents are a far sight better than most.
-
There absolutely were people that were armed. Christopher Albert (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351686/download) was one such person.
Outcome?
Hey remember when you called Dr VanNostrand a liar and said there were zero people that were armed there? Turns out you were wrong and acted pretty shitty based on a Facebook meme or something. Why don’t you acknowledge that?
-
There absolutely were people that were armed. Christopher Albert (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351686/download) was one such person.
Outcome?
Hey remember when you called Dr VanNostrand a liar and said there were zero people that were armed there? Turns out you were wrong and acted pretty shitty based on a Facebook meme or something. Why don’t you acknowledge that?
Because you offered something that didn't state what you claimed it does. That's why.
-
There absolutely were people that were armed. Christopher Albert (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351686/download) was one such person.
Outcome?
Hey remember when you called Dr VanNostrand a liar and said there were zero people that were armed there? Turns out you were wrong and acted pretty shitty based on a Facebook meme or something. Why don’t you acknowledge that?
Because you offered something that didn't state what you claimed it does. That's why.
Sorry you are having trouble reading. Let me quote the part where they say he was armed, what type of firearm it was, the serial number, the number of rounds he had and that there was one in the chamber:
At that point, I told two MPD officers next to him that ALBERTS had a firearm on his person. ALBERTS, apparently hearing that, immediately tried to flee, but I was able to detain him with the help of two other officers. A black Taurus G2C 9mm (Serial#AAL085515) was recovered from D-1’s right hip. Additionally, a separate magazine was located on D-1’s left hip. Both the gun and the spare magazine were in held in two separate holsters. The handgun had one round in the chamber with a twelve round capacity magazine filled with twelve rounds; the spare magazine also had a twelve round capacity and was filled with twelve rounds.
Now I eagerly await an admission that:
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
Was incorrect. Also that:
You're just weak liar.
Was completely unwarranted since you were attacking him based on your ignorance.
EDIT: At least 4 were charged with firearms violations in connection with the event.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt
-
There absolutely were people that were armed. Christopher Albert (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351686/download) was one such person.
Outcome?
Hey remember when you called Dr VanNostrand a liar and said there were zero people that were armed there? Turns out you were wrong and acted pretty shitty based on a Facebook meme or something. Why don’t you acknowledge that?
Because you offered something that didn't state what you claimed it does. That's why.
Sorry you are having trouble reading. Let me quote the part where they say he was armed, what type of firearm it was, the serial number, the number of rounds he had and that there was one in the chamber:
At that point, I told two MPD officers next to him that ALBERTS had a firearm on his person. ALBERTS, apparently hearing that, immediately tried to flee, but I was able to detain him with the help of two other officers. A black Taurus G2C 9mm (Serial#AAL085515) was recovered from D-1’s right hip. Additionally, a separate magazine was located on D-1’s left hip. Both the gun and the spare magazine were in held in two separate holsters. The handgun had one round in the chamber with a twelve round capacity magazine filled with twelve rounds; the spare magazine also had a twelve round capacity and was filled with twelve rounds.
Now I eagerly await an admission that:
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
Was incorrect. Also that:
You're just weak liar.
Was completely unwarranted since you were attacking him based on your ignorance.
EDIT: At least 4 were charged with firearms violations in connection with the event.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt
Nothing about anything related to actual possession on grounds on January 6.
Prosecutor overcharge, as usual.
-
There absolutely were people that were armed. Christopher Albert (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351686/download) was one such person.
Outcome?
Hey remember when you called Dr VanNostrand a liar and said there were zero people that were armed there? Turns out you were wrong and acted pretty shitty based on a Facebook meme or something. Why don’t you acknowledge that?
Because you offered something that didn't state what you claimed it does. That's why.
Sorry you are having trouble reading. Let me quote the part where they say he was armed, what type of firearm it was, the serial number, the number of rounds he had and that there was one in the chamber:
At that point, I told two MPD officers next to him that ALBERTS had a firearm on his person. ALBERTS, apparently hearing that, immediately tried to flee, but I was able to detain him with the help of two other officers. A black Taurus G2C 9mm (Serial#AAL085515) was recovered from D-1’s right hip. Additionally, a separate magazine was located on D-1’s left hip. Both the gun and the spare magazine were in held in two separate holsters. The handgun had one round in the chamber with a twelve round capacity magazine filled with twelve rounds; the spare magazine also had a twelve round capacity and was filled with twelve rounds.
Now I eagerly await an admission that:
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
Was incorrect. Also that:
You're just weak liar.
Was completely unwarranted since you were attacking him based on your ignorance.
EDIT: At least 4 were charged with firearms violations in connection with the event.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt
Nothing about anything related to actual possession on grounds on January 6.
Prosecutor overcharge, as usual.
This took place in the US Capitol Visitor Center (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Visitor_Center) which is an addition to the Capitol Building and “on Capitol grounds”; indeed it has space and offices used by Congress.
Did you read the document I linked at all?
-
There absolutely were people that were armed. Christopher Albert (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351686/download) was one such person.
Outcome?
Hey remember when you called Dr VanNostrand a liar and said there were zero people that were armed there? Turns out you were wrong and acted pretty shitty based on a Facebook meme or something. Why don’t you acknowledge that?
Because you offered something that didn't state what you claimed it does. That's why.
Sorry you are having trouble reading. Let me quote the part where they say he was armed, what type of firearm it was, the serial number, the number of rounds he had and that there was one in the chamber:
At that point, I told two MPD officers next to him that ALBERTS had a firearm on his person. ALBERTS, apparently hearing that, immediately tried to flee, but I was able to detain him with the help of two other officers. A black Taurus G2C 9mm (Serial#AAL085515) was recovered from D-1’s right hip. Additionally, a separate magazine was located on D-1’s left hip. Both the gun and the spare magazine were in held in two separate holsters. The handgun had one round in the chamber with a twelve round capacity magazine filled with twelve rounds; the spare magazine also had a twelve round capacity and was filled with twelve rounds.
Now I eagerly await an admission that:
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
Was incorrect. Also that:
You're just weak liar.
Was completely unwarranted since you were attacking him based on your ignorance.
EDIT: At least 4 were charged with firearms violations in connection with the event.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt
Nothing about anything related to actual possession on grounds on January 6.
Prosecutor overcharge, as usual.
This took place in the US Capitol Visitor Center (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Visitor_Center) which is an addition to the Capitol Building and “on Capitol grounds”; indeed it has space and offices used by Congress.
Did you read the document I linked at all?
Of course and like I wrote, it's not what you allege it is or what you want it to be.
-
So someone possessing a firearm on Capitol Grounds on Jan 6 isn't actually possesing a firearm on Capitol Grounds on Jan 6th, good talk.
-
So someone possessing a firearm on Capitol Grounds on Jan 6 isn't actually possesing a firearm on Capitol Grounds on Jan 6th, good talk.
Revising definitions after the fact is a favorite pastime of all shitbags and idiots
So literally possessing a firearm isn't possessing a firearm. Keep going.
-
So someone possessing a firearm on Capitol Grounds on Jan 6 isn't actually possesing a firearm on Capitol Grounds on Jan 6th, good talk.
Revising definitions after the fact is a favorite pastime of all shitbags and idiots
So literally possessing a firearm isn't possessing a firearm. Keep going.
If we we were discussing possession you'd have a point. Try capitol grounds. I know you desperately need this, but too bad.
-
So someone possessing a firearm on Capitol Grounds on Jan 6 isn't actually possesing a firearm on Capitol Grounds on Jan 6th, good talk.
Revising definitions after the fact is a favorite pastime of all shitbags and idiots
So literally possessing a firearm isn't possessing a firearm. Keep going.
If we we were discussing possession you'd have a point. Try capitol grounds. I know you desperately need this, but too bad.
You haven't contradicted anything I said about Capitol Grounds, so it seems pretty obvious you don't have anything to contest it. But please, continue trying to appear as a mysterious maverick.
-
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
You're just weak liar.
Fuck that. That piece of human shit, Trump, was going to send federal troops to my town to protect a Target store from protesters marching against a corrupt police force that has brutalized the people of this city for over a half century. They weren't armed either.
Every rioter in that photo is a traitor to this nation. The Republicans supporting Putin's agenda who opened the doors for these traitors are traitors. Fuck each and every one of those 'short bus retards' (their lawyer's words, not mine.)
Seems like sour grapes.
It's pissed off grapes. I owned guns when I was 17. The idea that my mom and dad would let me take one of my rifles and go into the streets at night is incomprehensible. This little fuck head's parents are the real problem. So fuck them too.
Sour grapes from an ineffectual troll who has no point.
Rittenhouse killed two known shitbags and his trial ended in a just verdict.
His parents are a far sight better than most.
He randomly killed two people not knowing who they were.
What if someone had snatched that rifle away from that stupid Punk and shot him in the face with it. That's my idea of self-defense. That's my idea of someone protecting the community from an armed extremist freak.
Again, his weeping parents would blame someone else for things they could have prevented.
-
How many people at the US Capitol were armed?
Answer -0
You're just weak liar.
Fuck that. That piece of human shit, Trump, was going to send federal troops to my town to protect a Target store from protesters marching against a corrupt police force that has brutalized the people of this city for over a half century. They weren't armed either.
Every rioter in that photo is a traitor to this nation. The Republicans supporting Putin's agenda who opened the doors for these traitors are traitors. Fuck each and every one of those 'short bus retards' (their lawyer's words, not mine.)
Seems like sour grapes.
It's pissed off grapes. I owned guns when I was 17. The idea that my mom and dad would let me take one of my rifles and go into the streets at night is incomprehensible. This little fuck head's parents are the real problem. So fuck them too.
Sour grapes from an ineffectual troll who has no point.
Rittenhouse killed two known shitbags and his trial ended in a just verdict.
His parents are a far sight better than most.
He randomly killed two people not knowing who they were.
What if someone had snatched that rifle away from that stupid Punk and shot him in the face with it. That's my idea of self-defense. That's my idea of someone protecting the community from an armed extremist freak.
Again, his weeping parents would blame someone else for things they could have prevented.
He killed two despicable shitbags who wanted to kill him.
That's a fact of law and too bad for you.
Losers have trouble dealing with facts.
-
This entire thing is one giant 'only in America' shitshow. Layers and layers of American freedom-gone-wrong in action.
-
I've always believed that idea of an armed citizenry defending liberty from our federal government was an absolutely delusional redneck fantasy. I need the federal government to have resources and weaponry to defend us from powerful nation states all over the world. I want a government that can defend us from extremist terror groups with technology and intelligence.
Our government is not going to fall to a bunch of bumpkins with hand guns and hunting rifles!
A determined population is more than capable of resisting an occupying army, even one with far superior technology. America's recent military failures in the Middle East are strong evidence of this. By the same token, though, it's not the possession of the weapons guaranteed by the Second Amendment that allows them to fight back. It's more a question of their resourcefulness and determination.
-
A determined population is more than capable of resisting an occupying army, even one with far superior technology. America's recent military failures in the Middle East are strong evidence of this. By the same token, though, it's not the possession of the weapons guaranteed by the Second Amendment that allows them to fight back. It's more a question of their resourcefulness and determination.
Yep.... every extremist group on the planet watched January 6th. They understand all they have to do is strap bombs on themselves and push their way into the White House. It's only a matter of time before the dumbass Hillbillies figure out the same.
However, these patriotic right wing Freedom Fighters are idiots. They think Donald Trump actually cares about them. They think he's going to get them out of jail. They think the Dead Kennedys are going to reinstate Trump in office. They believe stupid shit they read on the internet.
On the other hand, Vladimir Putin's resourcefulness, determination and technology has led him to discover how to weaponize stupid people. The Chinese are also starting to deploy similar troll farms.
Everyone knows that nuclear war unwinnable and obsolete. The new warfare is about mobilizing hordes of dumbass zombies with propaganda and disinformation.
The super weapon of the future is the American idiot.
-
The fact of the matter is that anyone upset about the Rittenhouse trial sees a pedo getting shot in the pelvis and thinks "that could have been me!" It's certainly scary for the grab-the-minors demographic.
-
The fact of the matter is that anyone upset about the Rittenhouse trial sees a pedo getting shot in the pelvis and thinks "that could have been me!" It's certainly scary for the grab-the-minors demographic.
Yes, I'm sure all the child molesters in America are terrified that some rich spoiled Punk is going to randomly shoot them.
Unfortunately, the 17 year old punk wandering the streets with a rifle in my neighborhood was gunned down by the cops before he could kill any child molesters.
-
Yes, I'm sure all the child molesters in America are terrified that some rich spoiled Punk is going to randomly shoot them.
They should be.
Unfortunately, the 17 year old punk wandering the streets with a rifle in my neighborhood was gunned down by the cops before he could kill any child molesters.
Well sometimes the child molesters win.
-
Unfortunately, the 17 year old punk wandering the streets with a rifle in my neighborhood was gunned down by the cops before he could kill any child molesters.
Well sometimes the child molesters win.
Yeah
The child molesters just got lucky this time because the kid was black.