Kyle Rittenhouse trial

53,134 Views | 970 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by boognish_bear
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let me read in my whiny bartender voice...



And Mr. Clean weighs in again...

Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No one ever said heroes have to be smart.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso 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.



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.
If you are not already a resident of Colorado.........you should move here.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

Jack Bauer said:

Former ESPN and MSNBC anchor...




Oddly enough, that was exactly what the pedophile was thinking.
Keith was coming on to Kyle
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, when can we expect a statue of Kyle Rittenhouse? Or does that come after the pedophile and the domestic abuser gets their statues first?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

So, when can we expect a statue of Kyle Rittenhouse? Or does that come after the pedophile and the domestic abuser gets their statues first?
About the time that the mob realizes that if they allow a statue of Kyle, they get to demand it be torn down.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of the worst takes, at least she didn't laugh.

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


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

One of the worst takes, at least she didn't laugh.


Equitable for who? Pedophiles an domestic abusers?

Sounds about right, coming from her.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:




Insurrection you say?
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Jack Bauer said:




Insurrection you say?


It's only an insurrection if they post selfies while inside.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

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.


Brave brave Sir Shooter. You're the one arguing he was there to "protect things" with an extinguisher and a gun. This whole "when the police abandon you, regular citizens have to pick up the banner" narrative you guys built around Rittenhouse making him the hero. Then when I point out he didn't perform as such, you justify him acting like any other citizen with self preservation. The guy ran away, people attacked him, he appropriately used his weapon in self defense. End of story. You guys are the ones making it more than that.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

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.


Brave brave Sir Shooter. You're the one arguing he was there to "protect things" with an extinguisher and a gun. This whole "when the police abandon you, regular citizens have to pick up the banner" narrative you guys built around Rittenhouse making him the hero. Then when I point out he didn't perform as such, you justify him acting like any other citizen with self preservation. The guy ran away, people attacked him, he appropriately used his weapon in self defense. End of story. You guys are the ones making it more than that.
You "forgot" quite a lot about what Kyle did that day. Must be an innocent mistake on your part, like forgetting that the presence of armed citizens is also a deterrent to most criminals out in public, save for the occasional mental patient pedophile.
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:

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.
The Kenosha police served that purpose for them. It's been done multiple times in other venues. You guys are the ones making the argument about him being someone "stepping in for police".
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

ATL Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

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.


Brave brave Sir Shooter. You're the one arguing he was there to "protect things" with an extinguisher and a gun. This whole "when the police abandon you, regular citizens have to pick up the banner" narrative you guys built around Rittenhouse making him the hero. Then when I point out he didn't perform as such, you justify him acting like any other citizen with self preservation. The guy ran away, people attacked him, he appropriately used his weapon in self defense. End of story. You guys are the ones making it more than that.
You "forgot" quite a lot about what Kyle did that day. Must be an innocent mistake on your part, like forgetting that the presence of armed citizens is also a deterrent to most criminals out in public, save for the occasional mental patient pedophile.
You have any data on how much property or destruction was spared by the armed people being there vs the police that were driving them away? This is why I said what I said to Shooter. If you're saying you're replacing police because they aren't doing their job, then you do police things, like active engagement. This is why I've specifically said all along, being a helper vs a protector are two different roles. Rittenhouse was a helper in my mind and fled in a situation police or a protector would engage. His weapon was used maybe as a deterrent, although without the information above who knows, and it's real purpose for him was for self defense. There is no "armed hero" narrative here. He was fortunate he had it as personal protection. And only 1 mental patient was shot as I recall, so others were chasing and willing (or stupid enough) to die or be harmed.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

ATL Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

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.


Brave brave Sir Shooter. You're the one arguing he was there to "protect things" with an extinguisher and a gun. This whole "when the police abandon you, regular citizens have to pick up the banner" narrative you guys built around Rittenhouse making him the hero. Then when I point out he didn't perform as such, you justify him acting like any other citizen with self preservation. The guy ran away, people attacked him, he appropriately used his weapon in self defense. End of story. You guys are the ones making it more than that.
You "forgot" quite a lot about what Kyle did that day. Must be an innocent mistake on your part, like forgetting that the presence of armed citizens is also a deterrent to most criminals out in public, save for the occasional mental patient pedophile.
You have any data on how much property or destruction was spared by the armed people being there vs the police that were driving them away? This is why I said what I said to Shooter. If you're saying you're replacing police because they aren't doing their job, then you do police things, like active engagement. This is why I've specifically said all along, being a helper vs a protector are two different roles. Rittenhouse was a helper in my mind and fled in a situation police or a protector would engage. His weapon was used maybe as a deterrent, although without the information above who knows, and it's real purpose for him was for self defense. There is no "armed hero" narrative here. He was fortunate he had it as personal protection. And only 1 mental patient was shot as I recall, so others were chasing and willing (or stupid enough) to die or be harmed.
Pretending people aren't deterred by the visual of armed security because you don't have the written confession of criminals who were actually deterred is disingenuous at best. Kyle not behaving by the standard YOU have set for what you consider policing means nothing. He was there, his presence served as a deterrence for everyone except the violent suicidal mental patient pedophile. It IS possible to do a hell of a lot more than hide at home like a coward and less than what a cop would do if they were doing their jobs. You don't think Kyle is a hero because he didn't do paperwork? Because he didn't have a government badge? Because he didn't try to arrest all the looters and rioters? Hilarious.
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:

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.
The Kenosha police served that purpose for them.
There was no guarantee of that, much less for Rittenhouse who wasn't wearing a uniform. I'm arguing that his conduct met or exceeded what was required of police. That's not the same as saying he stepped into their shoes. You seem to have an idea that protection equals confrontation, which is not always true for civilians or police. Anyway, I think we both agree this was the right verdict.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wasn't it the police themselves that told the armed men that "we appreciate you".
jupiter
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Isn't it terrible that Rittenhouse got a jury trial instead of being judged by politicians, big media and social platforms?

These guys are "fact checkers", they couldn't be wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Bee has been killing it.

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

The Bee has been killing it.


LOL
Really funny stuff
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The race batiers have officially jumped the shark by trying to make the Rittenhouse thing about white supremacy or racism in general.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
why wasn't Kyle Rittenhouse "charged"?

Was this trial just an illusion to the left?

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

why wasn't Kyle Rittenhouse "charged"?

Was this trial just an illusion to the left?


She must have meant "convicted" instead of "charged"
Otherwise it makes no sense
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:





Amen and Amen.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:



What's the Hebrew word for 'MSNBC'?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Redbrickbear said:



What's the Hebrew word for 'MSNBC'?


Dunno, but the Yiddish word is Meshuggah
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:


Sweet. Halloween is going to be easy next year.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:




insane..
“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.’ “
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

why wasn't Kyle Rittenhouse "charged"?

Was this trial just an illusion to the left?


if you dont have an answer, get better news sources..
“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.’ “
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Jack Bauer said:

why wasn't Kyle Rittenhouse "charged"?

Was this trial just an illusion to the left?


if you dont have an answer, get better news sources..


When you kill would be murderers, in self defense, you are free to go. Very easy to understand.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

4th and Inches said:

Jack Bauer said:

why wasn't Kyle Rittenhouse "charged"?

Was this trial just an illusion to the left?


if you dont have an answer, get better news sources..


When you kill would be murderers, in self defense, you are free to go. Very easy to understand.
i know

https://www.wptv.com/news/region-indian-river-county/andrew-coffee-iv-found-not-guilty-on-5-counts-in-indian-river-county-swat-raid

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