Kyle Rittenhouse trial

53,130 Views | 970 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by boognish_bear
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Former ESPN and MSNBC anchor...

Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's funny cause it's true.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

It's funny cause it's true.

Kyle Rittenhouse is no hero. I thank God he was acquitted of murder.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
ATL Bear
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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear 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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".


Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state, so he was required by law to run away. The entire time, Rittenhouse was obeying the law... only those ignorant of the law (like you) would believe otherwise.

It's amusing that your major criticism is that he attempted to diffuse the situation, instead of shooting first... so you would have preferred if he just shot them?? Somehow I doubt that you actually mean what you say.

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Op-Ed: We Don't Need Due Process for People We Know Are Guilty

Due process. It seems like a great idea. Everyone gets their day in court, and the rules apply equally to all. But now with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we've seen what a terrible idea due process is when you know someone is guilty and just want him to be thrown straight into prison.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murder-crazed shooty person who hates people of color so much that he shot white people (since white is the combination of all colors). No one in my bubble disputes this. Yet, there he is getting a day in court, where the same rules of fairness we want to be applied to oppressed people get applied to him. Each day, I vomit all over myself just thinking about it.
It is a mockery of justice to see due process used for someone who we all know is guilty. I mean, we saw pictures of Rittenhouse holding an AR-15; that by itself should be enough to send anyone to prison forever. In addition, he crossed state lines. Let me repeat that: STATE LINES. Who would brazenly do such a thing, except to cause murder and chaos?
This has to change. It harms people to see a white male treated with the presumption of innocence. In the future, if blue checks on Twitter declare you guilty of murder, you can still have a trial, but no more due process. The judge has to hate you and yell at you the whole time, and restraints are no longer placed on the prosecution. And no defense for you, because it's just offensive to ever see anyone assert that someone like Rittenhouse is innocent. And, if for some crazy reason you're found not guilty, the prosecutor gets to appeal until he gets it right.
We need to stop worrying about plain old justice when there's social justice at stake.
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Op-Ed: We Don't Need Due Process for People We Know Are Guilty

Due process. It seems like a great idea. Everyone gets their day in court, and the rules apply equally to all. But now with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we've seen what a terrible idea due process is when you know someone is guilty and just want him to be thrown straight into prison.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murder-crazed shooty person who hates people of color so much that he shot white people (since white is the combination of all colors). No one in my bubble disputes this. Yet, there he is getting a day in court, where the same rules of fairness we want to be applied to oppressed people get applied to him. Each day, I vomit all over myself just thinking about it.
It is a mockery of justice to see due process used for someone who we all know is guilty. I mean, we saw pictures of Rittenhouse holding an AR-15; that by itself should be enough to send anyone to prison forever. In addition, he crossed state lines. Let me repeat that: STATE LINES. Who would brazenly do such a thing, except to cause murder and chaos?
This has to change. It harms people to see a white male treated with the presumption of innocence. In the future, if blue checks on Twitter declare you guilty of murder, you can still have a trial, but no more due process. The judge has to hate you and yell at you the whole time, and restraints are no longer placed on the prosecution. And no defense for you, because it's just offensive to ever see anyone assert that someone like Rittenhouse is innocent. And, if for some crazy reason you're found not guilty, the prosecutor gets to appeal until he gets it right.
We need to stop worrying about plain old justice when there's social justice at stake.
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty



Was this written by quash or Porteroso?
Definitely one of those two.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Former ESPN and MSNBC anchor...




Oddly enough, that was exactly what the pedophile was thinking.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

ATL Bear 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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".


Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state, so he was required by law to run away. The entire time, Rittenhouse was obeying the law... only those ignorant of the law (like you) would believe otherwise.

It's amusing that your major criticism is that he attempted to diffuse the situation, instead of shooting first... so you would have preferred if he just shot them?? Somehow I doubt that you actually mean what you say.


Only an idiot would believe he ran away because of his knowledge of stand your ground laws in a state he didn't live in. Yes, if you're there to protect something you act like you're protecting something, not run away when it gets hot. The former is "heroic" not the latter. If you don't like the smoke, don't jump in the fire. Or wait, he wasn't actually serious about being a "protector"?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Osodecentx said:

Op-Ed: We Don't Need Due Process for People We Know Are Guilty

Due process. It seems like a great idea. Everyone gets their day in court, and the rules apply equally to all. But now with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we've seen what a terrible idea due process is when you know someone is guilty and just want him to be thrown straight into prison.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murder-crazed shooty person who hates people of color so much that he shot white people (since white is the combination of all colors). No one in my bubble disputes this. Yet, there he is getting a day in court, where the same rules of fairness we want to be applied to oppressed people get applied to him. Each day, I vomit all over myself just thinking about it.
It is a mockery of justice to see due process used for someone who we all know is guilty. I mean, we saw pictures of Rittenhouse holding an AR-15; that by itself should be enough to send anyone to prison forever. In addition, he crossed state lines. Let me repeat that: STATE LINES. Who would brazenly do such a thing, except to cause murder and chaos?
This has to change. It harms people to see a white male treated with the presumption of innocence. In the future, if blue checks on Twitter declare you guilty of murder, you can still have a trial, but no more due process. The judge has to hate you and yell at you the whole time, and restraints are no longer placed on the prosecution. And no defense for you, because it's just offensive to ever see anyone assert that someone like Rittenhouse is innocent. And, if for some crazy reason you're found not guilty, the prosecutor gets to appeal until he gets it right.
We need to stop worrying about plain old justice when there's social justice at stake.
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty



Was this written by quash or Porteroso?
Definitely one of those two.
Or Babylon Bee
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

ATL Bear 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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".


Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state, so he was required by law to run away. The entire time, Rittenhouse was obeying the law... only those ignorant of the law (like you) would believe otherwise.

It's amusing that your major criticism is that he attempted to diffuse the situation, instead of shooting first... so you would have preferred if he just shot them?? Somehow I doubt that you actually mean what you say.


Only an idiot would believe he ran away because of his knowledge of stand your ground laws in a state he didn't live in. Yes, if you're there to protect something you act like you're protecting something, not run away when it gets hot. The former is "heroic" not the latter. If you don't like the smoke, don't jump in the fire. Or wait, he wasn't actually serious about being a "protector"?

The police pushed everyone South on Sheridan Ave including Rittenhouse. There is video footage of him asking the cops to get back to the Car Source and they refused. So he couldn't protect the Car Source at that moment.
Freedomb3ar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

ShooterTX said:

Osodecentx said:

Op-Ed: We Don't Need Due Process for People We Know Are Guilty

Due process. It seems like a great idea. Everyone gets their day in court, and the rules apply equally to all. But now with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we've seen what a terrible idea due process is when you know someone is guilty and just want him to be thrown straight into prison.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murder-crazed shooty person who hates people of color so much that he shot white people (since white is the combination of all colors). No one in my bubble disputes this. Yet, there he is getting a day in court, where the same rules of fairness we want to be applied to oppressed people get applied to him. Each day, I vomit all over myself just thinking about it.
It is a mockery of justice to see due process used for someone who we all know is guilty. I mean, we saw pictures of Rittenhouse holding an AR-15; that by itself should be enough to send anyone to prison forever. In addition, he crossed state lines. Let me repeat that: STATE LINES. Who would brazenly do such a thing, except to cause murder and chaos?
This has to change. It harms people to see a white male treated with the presumption of innocence. In the future, if blue checks on Twitter declare you guilty of murder, you can still have a trial, but no more due process. The judge has to hate you and yell at you the whole time, and restraints are no longer placed on the prosecution. And no defense for you, because it's just offensive to ever see anyone assert that someone like Rittenhouse is innocent. And, if for some crazy reason you're found not guilty, the prosecutor gets to appeal until he gets it right.
We need to stop worrying about plain old justice when there's social justice at stake.
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty



Was this written by quash or Porteroso?
Definitely one of those two.
Or Babylon Bee


If Babylon bee has a Twitter...now they don't
SIC EM 94
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.


My God you have a a f'ed up view of what you think is reality.
Freedomb3ar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

ATL Bear 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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".


Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state, so he was required by law to run away. The entire time, Rittenhouse was obeying the law... only those ignorant of the law (like you) would believe otherwise.

It's amusing that your major criticism is that he attempted to diffuse the situation, instead of shooting first... so you would have preferred if he just shot them?? Somehow I doubt that you actually mean what you say.




Sometimes better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Freedomb3ar said:

ShooterTX said:

ATL Bear 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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".


Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state, so he was required by law to run away. The entire time, Rittenhouse was obeying the law... only those ignorant of the law (like you) would believe otherwise.

It's amusing that your major criticism is that he attempted to diffuse the situation, instead of shooting first... so you would have preferred if he just shot them?? Somehow I doubt that you actually mean what you say.




Sometimes better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6


Yep

Always better.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

ATL Bear 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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".


Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state, so he was required by law to run away. The entire time, Rittenhouse was obeying the law... only those ignorant of the law (like you) would believe otherwise.

It's amusing that your major criticism is that he attempted to diffuse the situation, instead of shooting first... so you would have preferred if he just shot them?? Somehow I doubt that you actually mean what you say.


Only an idiot would believe he ran away because of his knowledge of stand your ground laws in a state he didn't live in. Yes, if you're there to protect something you act like you're protecting something, not run away when it gets hot. The former is "heroic" not the latter. If you don't like the smoke, don't jump in the fire. Or wait, he wasn't actually serious about being a "protector"?


You are a moron.
Your idea would have negated the plea of self defense as it is only valid as a last resort.
If you use deadly force without first exhausting all other options... then you will be guilty of manslaughter or murder (not 1st degree).

Warning: do NOT listen to ATL Bear, unless you want to spend the rest of your life in jail.
He is a fool.

whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Former ESPN and MSNBC anchor...




He needs to go eat something.

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Freedomb3ar said:

Osodecentx said:

ShooterTX said:

Osodecentx said:

Op-Ed: We Don't Need Due Process for People We Know Are Guilty

Due process. It seems like a great idea. Everyone gets their day in court, and the rules apply equally to all. But now with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we've seen what a terrible idea due process is when you know someone is guilty and just want him to be thrown straight into prison.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murder-crazed shooty person who hates people of color so much that he shot white people (since white is the combination of all colors). No one in my bubble disputes this. Yet, there he is getting a day in court, where the same rules of fairness we want to be applied to oppressed people get applied to him. Each day, I vomit all over myself just thinking about it.
It is a mockery of justice to see due process used for someone who we all know is guilty. I mean, we saw pictures of Rittenhouse holding an AR-15; that by itself should be enough to send anyone to prison forever. In addition, he crossed state lines. Let me repeat that: STATE LINES. Who would brazenly do such a thing, except to cause murder and chaos?
This has to change. It harms people to see a white male treated with the presumption of innocence. In the future, if blue checks on Twitter declare you guilty of murder, you can still have a trial, but no more due process. The judge has to hate you and yell at you the whole time, and restraints are no longer placed on the prosecution. And no defense for you, because it's just offensive to ever see anyone assert that someone like Rittenhouse is innocent. And, if for some crazy reason you're found not guilty, the prosecutor gets to appeal until he gets it right.
We need to stop worrying about plain old justice when there's social justice at stake.
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty



Was this written by quash or Porteroso?
Definitely one of those two.
Or Babylon Bee


If Babylon bee has a Twitter...now they don't
IDK
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Op-Ed: We Don't Need Due Process for People We Know Are Guilty

Due process. It seems like a great idea. Everyone gets their day in court, and the rules apply equally to all. But now with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we've seen what a terrible idea due process is when you know someone is guilty and just want him to be thrown straight into prison.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murder-crazed shooty person who hates people of color so much that he shot white people (since white is the combination of all colors). No one in my bubble disputes this. Yet, there he is getting a day in court, where the same rules of fairness we want to be applied to oppressed people get applied to him. Each day, I vomit all over myself just thinking about it.
It is a mockery of justice to see due process used for someone who we all know is guilty. I mean, we saw pictures of Rittenhouse holding an AR-15; that by itself should be enough to send anyone to prison forever. In addition, he crossed state lines. Let me repeat that: STATE LINES. Who would brazenly do such a thing, except to cause murder and chaos?
This has to change. It harms people to see a white male treated with the presumption of innocence. In the future, if blue checks on Twitter declare you guilty of murder, you can still have a trial, but no more due process. The judge has to hate you and yell at you the whole time, and restraints are no longer placed on the prosecution. And no defense for you, because it's just offensive to ever see anyone assert that someone like Rittenhouse is innocent. And, if for some crazy reason you're found not guilty, the prosecutor gets to appeal until he gets it right.
We need to stop worrying about plain old justice when there's social justice at stake.
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty

That's "notthebee" right?
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Freedomb3ar said:

ShooterTX said:

ATL Bear 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.
For self defense. He chose to run away as opposed to keep people at bay with it while he "helped".


Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state, so he was required by law to run away. The entire time, Rittenhouse was obeying the law... only those ignorant of the law (like you) would believe otherwise.

It's amusing that your major criticism is that he attempted to diffuse the situation, instead of shooting first... so you would have preferred if he just shot them?? Somehow I doubt that you actually mean what you say.




Sometimes better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
I recommend giving this one a read. https://www.amazon.com/Violence-Mind-Training-Preparation-Extreme-ebook/dp/B07BGJFD7L
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Osodecentx said:

Op-Ed: We Don't Need Due Process for People We Know Are Guilty

Due process. It seems like a great idea. Everyone gets their day in court, and the rules apply equally to all. But now with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we've seen what a terrible idea due process is when you know someone is guilty and just want him to be thrown straight into prison.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murder-crazed shooty person who hates people of color so much that he shot white people (since white is the combination of all colors). No one in my bubble disputes this. Yet, there he is getting a day in court, where the same rules of fairness we want to be applied to oppressed people get applied to him. Each day, I vomit all over myself just thinking about it.
It is a mockery of justice to see due process used for someone who we all know is guilty. I mean, we saw pictures of Rittenhouse holding an AR-15; that by itself should be enough to send anyone to prison forever. In addition, he crossed state lines. Let me repeat that: STATE LINES. Who would brazenly do such a thing, except to cause murder and chaos?
This has to change. It harms people to see a white male treated with the presumption of innocence. In the future, if blue checks on Twitter declare you guilty of murder, you can still have a trial, but no more due process. The judge has to hate you and yell at you the whole time, and restraints are no longer placed on the prosecution. And no defense for you, because it's just offensive to ever see anyone assert that someone like Rittenhouse is innocent. And, if for some crazy reason you're found not guilty, the prosecutor gets to appeal until he gets it right.
We need to stop worrying about plain old justice when there's social justice at stake.
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty

That's "notthebee" right?
Hoping you can figure it out
Freedomb3ar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:




Well then
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New Yorkers marching to protest the Rittenhouse verdict. Where is the cockroach spray? Why has the fumigation not commenced? What REALLY sucks the most for these people is that they live in New York. And they have no clue!
"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:

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 not uncommon for EMTs and firefighters to be attacked as well. That's why some departments have taken to issuing body armor. They can't carry guns. Ordinary citizens can, and that's a good thing.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I heard Rittenhouse is going to be on Tucker Carlson on Monday night - presumably to announce his first round of lawsuits.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

I heard Rittenhouse is going to be on Tucker Carlson on Monday night - presumably to announce his first round of lawsuits.
Going to need those millions for intensive personal security for the rest of his life.

The media, congress and even the President of the United States have branded a bullseye on his forehead .
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Osodecentx said:

Op-Ed: We Don't Need Due Process for People We Know Are Guilty

Due process. It seems like a great idea. Everyone gets their day in court, and the rules apply equally to all. But now with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we've seen what a terrible idea due process is when you know someone is guilty and just want him to be thrown straight into prison.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murder-crazed shooty person who hates people of color so much that he shot white people (since white is the combination of all colors). No one in my bubble disputes this. Yet, there he is getting a day in court, where the same rules of fairness we want to be applied to oppressed people get applied to him. Each day, I vomit all over myself just thinking about it.
It is a mockery of justice to see due process used for someone who we all know is guilty. I mean, we saw pictures of Rittenhouse holding an AR-15; that by itself should be enough to send anyone to prison forever. In addition, he crossed state lines. Let me repeat that: STATE LINES. Who would brazenly do such a thing, except to cause murder and chaos?
This has to change. It harms people to see a white male treated with the presumption of innocence. In the future, if blue checks on Twitter declare you guilty of murder, you can still have a trial, but no more due process. The judge has to hate you and yell at you the whole time, and restraints are no longer placed on the prosecution. And no defense for you, because it's just offensive to ever see anyone assert that someone like Rittenhouse is innocent. And, if for some crazy reason you're found not guilty, the prosecutor gets to appeal until he gets it right.
We need to stop worrying about plain old justice when there's social justice at stake.
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty



Was this written by quash or Porteroso?
Definitely one of those two.

I think not guilty was the correct verdict, and that Rittenhouse is a moron for putting himself into that situation.

I know, I know, my thoughts are complex enough for the heavens, subtle enough for the most evil of the devil's tricks oh wait actually you can't read what a surprise.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Justice!

Now sue anyone and everyone that spread the false information and lies.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

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?

Depends. It's never a victim's fault for the crimes committed against them, but victims aren't beyond stupidity. Notice I'm saying the victim is never at fault, but they might have been stupid, depending.

Nobody in America should expect to be raped no matter what they wear. I actually walked by what must have been a stripper photoshoot a few days ago, and they didn't seem scared at all. But do that photoshoot in Tehran, and I'd say they're stupid. Not their fault if they get raped or stoned to death, but definitely stupid. It's almost like context matters.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are the animals rioting in Kenosha? Not a peep out of the MSM. I would say NO. No news is good news I guess.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Are the animals rioting in Kenosha? Not a peep out of the MSM. I would say NO. No news is good news I guess.
You can see livestream here, pretty tame so far.

Worse actors in Denver tonight.

https://www.twitch.tv/humandilemma
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shut up and dribble!!!


Quote:

MILWAUKEE -- Milwaukee Bucks coach Mike Budenholzer said the organization would "continue to fight for better" in the aftermath of a jury's verdict Friday that Kyle Rittenhouse, who fatally shot two men and wounded another during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year, was acquitted of all charges.

Budenholzer anticipated having a conversation with the team ahead of Friday's game against the Oklahoma City Thunder.

"Still trying to push for better in our country," Budenholzer said prior to the game. "Hoping for improvement. Organizationally, just continue to fight for social justice, for better. But at the same time, have to abide by the jury and the decision and the verdict and continue to fight for better."

Quote:

"Clearly these situations are disappointing and it's important to not become demoralized and for people to continue to fight for the type of justice and equality that serves all," Nets coach Steve Nash said. "While I think it raises a lot of eyebrows, questions, a lot of pain, we recognize there has to be a path forward.

Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Slave-catcher" from Joy Racebait.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.