Kyle Rittenhouse trial

53,162 Views | 970 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by boognish_bear
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

notbubbleboy said:

I may have missed something, but did this trial have a sports and/or racial connection? I ask because three people on ESPN (NBA today) are having a panel discussion and talking about how speechless they are. I don't begrudge them their opinion, but ESPN doesn't even try to find a sports tie in anymore.
Woke sports are the worst kind.

People wonder why I'm not anointing Rittenhouse as some type of "hero". It's because a. He isn't and b. The same idiots you mention above will argue the people who chased him down are heroes who sacrificed their lives trying to stop a white supremacist with a weapon at a BLM protest. No heroes there that day. Jury rendered the correct verdict. Time to move on.

These right wing radicals are basically living their Wyatt Earp fantasies out through Rittenhouse, and the stars really aligned to make it a great Western story. He shot a criminal, a wife beater, and a pedophile while trying to put out fires and render first aid.

What a narrative. Too bad it's so divorced from reality.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How long before Garland declares Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

ATL Bear said:

notbubbleboy said:

I may have missed something, but did this trial have a sports and/or racial connection? I ask because three people on ESPN (NBA today) are having a panel discussion and talking about how speechless they are. I don't begrudge them their opinion, but ESPN doesn't even try to find a sports tie in anymore.
Woke sports are the worst kind.

People wonder why I'm not anointing Rittenhouse as some type of "hero". It's because a. He isn't and b. The same idiots you mention above will argue the people who chased him down are heroes who sacrificed their lives trying to stop a white supremacist with a weapon at a BLM protest. No heroes there that day. Jury rendered the correct verdict. Time to move on.

These right wing radicals are basically living their Wyatt Earp fantasies out through Rittenhouse, and the stars really aligned to make it a great Western story. He shot a criminal, a wife beater, and a pedophile while trying to put out fires and render first aid.

What a narrative. Too bad it's so divorced from reality.
What might be really cool if about 250 America Loving men and women with AR-15s show up tonight on the streets of Kenosha . The rat people will be scurrying!
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

**** Nadler.
I will buy you a beer!
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Mothra said:

Jack Bauer said:

From the man who said Antifa was a "myth"


Clearly he didn't follow the case, since Rittenhouse didn't cross state lines with the weapon. So uninformed. Merely repeating the talking points.


And another NY idiot


Mayor Bill de Blowhard, is just that.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Jack Bauer said:

Mothra said:

Jack Bauer said:

From the man who said Antifa was a "myth"


Clearly he didn't follow the case, since Rittenhouse didn't cross state lines with the weapon. So uninformed. Merely repeating the talking points.


And another NY idiot


Mayor Bill de Blowhard, is just that.
Pigs be unto him,
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
Do you think the 3 guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery are heroes who were fighting anarchy?
No.
I don't blame you
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
The 3 men who killed Arbery claim to be protecting the community, the same claim you make for Rittenhouse.
The man killed by the Georgia defendants wasn't marching for racial justice.
You claim "hero status" for Rittenhouse, yet are silent about the Georgia "heroes"
Do you think the three rioters shot by Kyle were marching for racial justice?
Of course not.
Do you think the Georgia defendants are heroes, the claim you make for Rittenhouse? If not, please distinguish the 2 cases
No. They ceased being any type of hero when they tried to unlawfully detain someone without any proof of a crime being committed. They are murderers.
But in the opinion of the 3 Georgia defendants, they were defending the community from a criminal and therefore justified. There had been several robberies in the neighborhood. At the time of the killing, a citizens arrest was legal in Georgia.
You've said that Rittenhouse was defending the community, the same claim made by the Georgia defendants.
But were they attacked? Neither a citizen nor police can kill if they're not in imminent danger.
He grabbed the barrel of the gun…
Of a defendant who likely had no right to be using it against him. It matters who starts stuff and why.
Apparently he had a right. He was found not guilty. So there's that.

If someone threatens me and says they are going to kill me when they get me alone, then later chases me and lunges at me even after a point my weapon at him as a deterrent and warning. You're damn right I have a right to use my gun.

I'm talking about the Arbery case.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam: "I'm talking about the Arbery case."

So start a thread, this one's about Rittenhouse.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Mothra said:

Jack Bauer said:

From the man who said Antifa was a "myth"


Clearly he didn't follow the case, since Rittenhouse didn't cross state lines with the weapon. So uninformed. Merely repeating the talking points.


And another NY idiot


Like I said on another post, these F'er lie with impunity.

They don't even care what actually happened.

The "narrative" is their truth.
Friscobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam: "I'm talking about the Arbery case."

So start a thread, this one's about Rittenhouse.

Or read the thread before you comment.

Sam wasn't even the one that initially brought up the Aubrey case.
“At the end of the day, for 40 minutes, we just kicked their ass.”

- Mark Vital
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
We're talking about how you protect or secure something vs protecting yourself with whatever means you have at disposal. The police literally drove people away so firefighters could put out fires, set up barricades, used armored vehicles, and drove them back with rubber bullets. I think people are confusing some of the things that happened in Minneapolis vs Kenosha including you. Rittenhouse may have intended to help in some way, but he wasn't there to secure or protect anything but himself.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

From the man who said Antifa was a "myth"


Let's not hear anymore about undermining the Justice system from the Democrats.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


WWBS - What Would Beto Say?
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
We're talking about how you protect or secure something vs protecting yourself with whatever means you have at disposal. The police literally drove people away so firefighters could put out fires, set up barricades, used armored vehicles, and drove them back with rubber bullets. I think people are confusing some of the things that happened in Minneapolis vs Kenosha including you. Rittenhouse may have intended to help in some way, but he wasn't there to secure or protect anything but himself.
Okay, but I just don't get how putting out fires and rendering aid isn't protecting people and things other than yourself.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

boognish_bear said:


WWBS - What Would Beto Say?


Beto O'Rourke: 'Hell yes' we'll take your AR-15
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

quash said:

**** Nadler.
Just watch. Garland and this administration are sycophants for the left. They live in an cultish bubble and they're angry.

Federal charges incoming.
You don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is a lot of actual misinformation and incitement being spread by the left right now. They are actively undermining justice. Zero censorship from social media social justice warriors.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

There is a lot of actual misinformation and incitement being spread by the left right now. They are actively undermining justice. Zero censorship from social media social justice warriors.

You can't censor it if you don't know it's wrong. The problem here is that "facts" don't matter. It's yet another in a string of problems. If you repeat the lie enough times it becomes the truth.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

There is a lot of actual misinformation and incitement being spread by the left right now. They are actively undermining justice. Zero censorship from social media social justice warriors.
What are you talking about? If someone has the opinion that he should have been found guilty, that is not misinformation.

Be specific, what misinformation is being spread?
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

boognish_bear said:


WWBS - What Would Beto Say?


Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
We're talking about how you protect or secure something vs protecting yourself with whatever means you have at disposal. The police literally drove people away so firefighters could put out fires, set up barricades, used armored vehicles, and drove them back with rubber bullets. I think people are confusing some of the things that happened in Minneapolis vs Kenosha including you. Rittenhouse may have intended to help in some way, but he wasn't there to secure or protect anything but himself.
Okay, but I just don't get how putting out fires and rendering aid isn't protecting people and things other than yourself.
He didn't need the weapon to do those activities. EMTs and Fire fighters were doing the same without weapons. This hero narrative seems to be built around him carrying a weapon and for others shooting people.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
We're talking about how you protect or secure something vs protecting yourself with whatever means you have at disposal. The police literally drove people away so firefighters could put out fires, set up barricades, used armored vehicles, and drove them back with rubber bullets. I think people are confusing some of the things that happened in Minneapolis vs Kenosha including you. Rittenhouse may have intended to help in some way, but he wasn't there to secure or protect anything but himself.
Okay, but I just don't get how putting out fires and rendering aid isn't protecting people and things other than yourself.
He didn't need the weapon to do those activities. EMTs and Fire fighters were doing the same without weapons. This hero narrative seems to be built around him carrying a weapon and for others shooting people.
It's been proven that he did indeed need a weapon.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

boognish_bear said:


WWBS - What Would Beto Say?
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The verdict being read. https://video.foxnews.com/v/6282812676001#sp=show-clips
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nice to see justice finally served, but this jury should've returned the verdicts within 5 minutes of the start of deliberations.

Actually, this trial shouldn't have happened at all, but unfortunately for Rittenhouse, he's white.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:



Actually, this trial shouldn't have happened at all, but unfortunately for Rittenhouse, he's white.
This
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
We're talking about how you protect or secure something vs protecting yourself with whatever means you have at disposal. The police literally drove people away so firefighters could put out fires, set up barricades, used armored vehicles, and drove them back with rubber bullets. I think people are confusing some of the things that happened in Minneapolis vs Kenosha including you. Rittenhouse may have intended to help in some way, but he wasn't there to secure or protect anything but himself.
Okay, but I just don't get how putting out fires and rendering aid isn't protecting people and things other than yourself.
He didn't need the weapon to do those activities. EMTs and Fire fighters were doing the same without weapons. This hero narrative seems to be built around him carrying a weapon and for others shooting people.
It's been proven that he did indeed need a weapon.

It's playing whatif, but he wouldn't have been attacked had he stayed where he started, or with friends, or hadn't had the AR. The guy who first attacked him was mentally unstable, and wasn't attacking just anyone.

It's like walking through the worst parts of Chicago with handfuls of Benjamins. It's not your fault when you got robbed, you did nothing illegal. The robber is the criminal. But it sure was stupid. Or just try the same as a white kid carrying an AR.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
We're talking about how you protect or secure something vs protecting yourself with whatever means you have at disposal. The police literally drove people away so firefighters could put out fires, set up barricades, used armored vehicles, and drove them back with rubber bullets. I think people are confusing some of the things that happened in Minneapolis vs Kenosha including you. Rittenhouse may have intended to help in some way, but he wasn't there to secure or protect anything but himself.
Okay, but I just don't get how putting out fires and rendering aid isn't protecting people and things other than yourself.
He didn't need the weapon to do those activities. EMTs and Fire fighters were doing the same without weapons. This hero narrative seems to be built around him carrying a weapon and for others shooting people.
It's been proven that he did indeed need a weapon.

It's playing whatif, but he wouldn't have been attacked had he stayed where he started, or with friends, or hadn't had the AR. The guy who first attacked him was mentally unstable, and wasn't attacking just anyone.

It's like walking through the worst parts of Chicago with handfuls of Benjamins. It's not your fault when you got robbed, you did nothing illegal. The robber is the criminal. But it sure was stupid. Or just try the same as a white kid carrying an AR.
Or a rape victim who dressed provocatively?
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

Disagree on C. When politicians hold back police and allow riots to continue it is up to citizens to step in and stop the violence. Citizens are literally the last line of defense against anarchy.
He couldn't even stop them from lighting a dumpster on fire and you're convinced somehow the riots were going to be stopped by him and the others out there? What did you think was going to happen? Are you advocating open gun battles?
He wasn't there to stop the riots, step in for police, or engage in battle. You don't have to do any of those things to protect the community. Putting out fires is protecting. Standing between rioters and property is protecting. That doesn't change because he retreated when attacked. It just means he was doing the right thing. Having the weapon still makes it harder on the insurrect -- sorry, on the protesters, because it lets him work safely and lets them know there's a risk in violently interfering.
This makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, what was he protecting the community or whatever he was protecting from? You don't carry a weapon as a risk warning in a security situation unless you are willing to use it in the performance of your duties. He used it in self defense and that's precisely why he brought it to Kenosha. That and probably to play tough.
The same was basically true of the police. They weren't permitted to use their weapons to defend property at all, or even use them to make an arrest unless the suspect had already used deadly force. Their weapons served mainly as a show of force and as self-defense.
What? I guess all the shield pushing, baton swinging, and tear gas was my imagination, not to mention the 100+ arrests.
I thought we were talking about guns. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying any of those things. The point is you can protect without firing a gun (unless you're attacked).
We're talking about how you protect or secure something vs protecting yourself with whatever means you have at disposal. The police literally drove people away so firefighters could put out fires, set up barricades, used armored vehicles, and drove them back with rubber bullets. I think people are confusing some of the things that happened in Minneapolis vs Kenosha including you. Rittenhouse may have intended to help in some way, but he wasn't there to secure or protect anything but himself.
Okay, but I just don't get how putting out fires and rendering aid isn't protecting people and things other than yourself.
He didn't need the weapon to do those activities. EMTs and Fire fighters were doing the same without weapons. This hero narrative seems to be built around him carrying a weapon and for others shooting people.
It's been proven that he did indeed need a weapon.

It's playing whatif, but he wouldn't have been attacked had he stayed where he started, or with friends, or hadn't had the AR. The guy who first attacked him was mentally unstable, and wasn't attacking just anyone.

It's like walking through the worst parts of Chicago with handfuls of Benjamins. It's not your fault when you got robbed, you did nothing illegal. The robber is the criminal. But it sure was stupid. Or just try the same as a white kid carrying an AR.


You go ahead and die on that hill... the rest of us will take the view that the truly stupid one was the one who attacked the kid with the AR. THAT takes a whole new level of stupidity... and so does attacking someone with an AR who just shot a guy... insane levels of stupidity.

But you just keep on jumping on the side of the pedophile... it's a great look for you.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.