Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[fattyflattie 4638]

18 hours ago, Lobo said:

But the well-done steak with ketchup eating

Very likely his largest indiscretion, if we're being honest.  That is some seriously offensive shit. 

[Captainant 27694]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

 

That’s so pathetic, hilarious and sad, all at the same time.

I think I see bravo and sack in the audience. 

[yoladu 4094]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

He appears to have gotten over his sorrow.

[Brothahorn 10087]

 

Sad that no adult will tell him to sit down and STFU. He could have easily been killed that night. And if the prosecution hadn't been such a clusterfuck, he would have basically lost his life. Maybe just chill out.

[RomaVicta 29951]

This didn't just happen to him; it's his dream.

He's Sully to a deranged part of our electorate.

[C-Man 27239]

This fucking guy. A "hero to millions" Charlie Kirk says. Rittenhouse hints he may sue media outlets.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gets-standing-ovation-from-conservatives-says-he-may-sue-media-outlets/ar-AAS25DE

Quote

Weeks after Kyle Rittenhouse said he wanted to “lay low” when he was found not guilty of homicide, attempted homicide and other charges related to last year’s fatal shootings that rocked Kenosha, Wis., the teen was welcomed Monday at a conservative conference to music, pyrotechnics and a standing ovation from thousands of attendees.

“You’re a hero to millions,” Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk told Rittenhouse during the group’s AmericaFest gathering in Phoenix. “It’s an honor to be able to have you.”

Amid the pomp and circumstance for an 18-year-old who had the crowd chanting his name, Rittenhouse, who shot and killed two men and injured another during mass protests against police violence in August 2020, suggested Monday that lawsuits could be filed against media outlets for how they covered his murder trial.

“There’s going to be some media accountability coming soon,” Rittenhouse told Fox News.

Rittenhouse did not identify any media outlets he could sue or cite any examples of alleged defamation, and he has not taken legal action against a media company. His attorney and family spokesman did not immediately respond to messages early Tuesday.

If he sues media outlets, Rittenhouse would follow the recent footsteps of Nicholas Sandmann, who announced Friday that he has reached a settlement with NBC News regarding its coverage of an interaction between the Catholic school student and Native American activist Nathan Phillips in Washington during the March for Life in 2019. When asked by Fox about Sandmann’s latest settlement, Rittenhouse responded, “Good for him.”

The Washington Post settled a lawsuit by Sandmann’s parents last year. Sandmann’s family contended in a suit filed in 2019 that The Post defamed Sandmann in seven articles and in tweets promoting the articles. The Post has maintained that its reporting was accurate and fair.

Although Rittenhouse has told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the polarization around his case was “sickening,” the teen has been embraced by conservatives in the weeks after he was acquitted of all charges for killing Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and injuring Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27. Rittenhouse admitted shooting the men, but he maintained that he acted in self-defense. Some conservatives have lionized him, while critics have described him as a violent vigilante.

In the month since a jury found him not guilty, Rittenhouse has given interviews in which he has acknowledged that traveling to Kenosha after the police shooting of Jacob Blake was “not the best idea.” He recently met with former president Donald Trump, who called him “a nice young man,” and the teen is the subject of a documentary from Carlson airing on Fox Nation titled “The Trial of Kyle.”

Kyle Rittenhouse attorney says he ‘did not approve’ Tucker Carlson’s film crew following them at trial

Inside the Phoenix Convention Center, the roughly 6,700 in attendance were in a celebratory mood before Rittenhouse’s appearance. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who spoke at the event Monday, praised Rittenhouse — “my new friend” — a couple of hours before he spoke.

“You have the right to self-defense!” Boebert said.

Those in attendance chanted “Kyle! Kyle! Kyle!” in the moments before he walked onstage, the Arizona Republic reported.

A video of his entrance posted to Twitter has been viewed more than 1 million times. It shows pyrotechnics welcoming Rittenhouse onstage, while people in the audience hold up cellphone cameras to capture the moment. A digital version of the American flag has his name emblazoned across the stars and stripes as his entrance music repeats Rittenhouse’s name.

Critics online noted the welcome that Rittenhouse received, which one said included “WrestleMania-quality entrance pyro.”

“Kyle Rittenhouse gets a rock star reception at the Turning Point USA event in AZ,” observed Elex Michaelson, an anchor for KTTV in Los Angeles.

Rittenhouse’s appearance was one of the more high-profile slots at the four-day event for Turning Point USA, the prominent conservative youth organization that has supported Trump and his false assertions of fraud in the 2020 presidential election that he lost to Joe Biden. Rittenhouse showed up the same day that Fox News host Jesse Watters suggested at AmericaFest that people upset with coronavirus measures should “ambush” Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top federal infectious-disease expert, in a street interview with a rhetorical “kill shot.” Fauci on Tuesday called for Watters to be fired.

Some Republicans criticized Turning Point USA for inviting Rittenhouse to speak at the event, saying it diminished the party.

“Whether or not you agree with the verdict is one thing,” Ashley Pratte Oates, a board member for Republican Women for Progress and a communications strategist, wrote in an opinion article for NBC News. “Glorifying someone who fatally shot two people and injured another (even though acquitted) is another.”

But Turning Point USA defended bringing Rittenhouse to AmericaFest, saying that “there’s a lot of people that want to hear what he has to say, and there’s a tremendous amount of interest.”

“You know, he didn’t ask for it, but he became this cultural symbol, a touch point of self-defense,” Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet told the Republic. “He got thrust into that, and he has a story to tell.”

In a 45-minute panel discussion with Kirk and others, there was a brief reference to one of the men Rittenhouse fatally shot, according to local media. At one point, Rittenhouse said he was a scapegoat in an alleged government effort to take away people’s guns.

“My trial was an example of them trying to come after our Second Amendment rights, our right to defend ourselves and trying to take our weapons,” he told the crowd.

AZ Right Wing Watch tweeted about how Rittenhouse’s celebrity was held in high regard among those in attendance.

“They asked if any of the women in the crowd wanted to go on a date with him & there were loud cheers,” the group wrote. “Someone had a ‘kiss me’ sign.”

Although the other panelists talked for most of the session, Rittenhouse said the trial had matured him: “You can only live one day at a time.” When he also suggested the possibility of lawsuits against the media, his remarks drew cheers from the sympathetic crowd.

“Accountability is coming,” he said. “I’d be on the lookout.”

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 12/22/2021 at 11:43 AM, yoladu said:

He appears to have gotten over his sorrow.

Johnny sack thinks this turd is a hero and worships him. 
 

I don’t think the sack could paint a clearer picture of how big of a piece of shit he is than that. He was probably in the audience bowing down to the great Kyle.

[Willfully Horn 8041]

On 12/22/2021 at 7:48 AM, Captainant said:

 

[Brisketexan 105183]

Again, refer to him by his inevitable title, Senator Rittenhouse.

[DDD Dad 14346]

Again, refer to him by his inevitable title, Senator Rittenhouse.

I’ve visited Rittenhouse Square in Philly so this…hits close to home.

[immortal13 4059]

On 12/22/2021 at 11:59 AM, Brothahorn said:

On 12/22/2021 at 7:48 AM, Captainant said:

 

 And if the prosecution hadn't been such a clusterfuck, he would have basically lost his life. Maybe just chill out.

Or maybe it was the fact that there was no evidence against him? 🤔

[TreatyOak 16389]

On 12/22/2021 at 11:59 AM, Brothahorn said:

On 12/22/2021 at 7:48 AM, Captainant said:

 

Sad that no adult will tell him to sit down and STFU. He could have easily been killed that night. And if the prosecution hadn't been such a clusterfuck, he would have basically lost his life. Maybe just chill out.

Perhaps you meant, “if the video and testimony under oath by one of his attackers didn’t clearly indicate that he was assaulted and defended himself.” Again, the protesters did $50 million in damages (as reported by the NY Times) but somehow, that never comes up from the people angry at the verdict in this case. 

[52-80 19207]

7 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

Perhaps you meant, “if the video and testimony under oath by one of his attackers didn’t clearly indicate that he was assaulted and defended himself.” Again, the protesters did $50 million in damages (as reported by the NY Times) but somehow, that never comes up from the people angry at the verdict in this case. 

some people just can't Trust the Judiciary.  they insist on doing their own 'research'.  sad.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

15 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Perhaps you meant, “if the video and testimony under oath by one of his attackers didn’t clearly indicate that he was assaulted and defended himself.

Had George Floyd killed Blue Lives Derek Chauvin, you would have supported that? 

[zzzz 39]

15 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Perhaps you meant, “if the video and testimony under oath by one of his attackers didn’t clearly indicate that he was assaulted and defended himself.” .

Perhaps you meant, "If the video and honest testimony under oath by one of the two men who heroically put their lives at risk pursuing Rittenhouse after he shot and killed someone only to be demonized as if they deserved to die for doing so by those who have made a hero out of Rittenhouse..."

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

Where were these absent legal detectives when George Floyd's murder was getting YouTubed who bloom of the woodwork when Rittenhouse's subsequent rights- that wouldn't even be an issue had Chauvin not murdered Floyd- are being violated? 

Nowhere. 

They're pro wrestling refs. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

You're the hypocrites who rationalize stockpiling arms as a deterrent to tyrannical government, bite your tongues, avert your eyes, and sit on your hands when government gets convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murder, then go rushing in to quell and attack those rightfully outraged at it.

You're traitors. 

[TreatyOak 16389]

7 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Had George Floyd killed Blue Lives Derek Chauvin, you would have supported that? 

I’ll let you pontificate on the made-up scenarios. I’ll stick with the facts. 

[TreatyOak 16389]

6 hours ago, zzzz said:

Perhaps you meant, "If the video and honest testimony under oath by one of the two men who heroically put their lives at risk pursuing Rittenhouse after he shot and killed someone only to be demonized as if they deserved to die for doing so by those who have made a hero out of Rittenhouse..."

I’ll respond to this one since you are at least willing to discuss the actual incident, vs the woke race-baiters and 2nd amendment nut-jobs. Let’s look at the heart of the case. 

The entire case boils down to what you are discussing. However, the prosecution never stood a chance, as they had the impossible task of trying to prove that Rittenhouse didn’t feel his life was imperiled. The video evidence clearly shows that in all cases, the people he shot were the aggressors. The first dude clearly attacked him. The second guy kicked him in the head as he lay on the ground. People were shouting to “get him.” The third guy hit him with his skateboard and tried to disarm him. The fourth guy pointed a firearm at him. In every case, the action was initiated by them and Rittenhouse didn’t shoot anyone who was simply standing around. His defense lawyer could rightly argue that he felt that his life was threatened. This didn’t take place at some mall or school. This was a group of rioters who committed $50 million in damages (source-the NY Times) to a town, so this was hardly a group of innocent bystanders. 

This was a pretty simple case and the jury got it right, just as they got it right in the prosecution of those morons in South Carolina who went out of their way to pursue and kill an innocent man. 

I am genuinely open to hear your thoughts on what I have shared. 

[Thatguy 8762]

11 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

I’ll respond to this one since you are at least willing to discuss the actual incident, vs the woke race-baiters and 2nd amendment nut-jobs. Let’s look at the heart of the case. 

The entire case boils down to what you are discussing. However, the prosecution never stood a chance, as they had the impossible task of trying to prove that Rittenhouse didn’t feel his life was imperiled. The video evidence clearly shows that in all cases, the people he shot were the aggressors. The first dude clearly attacked him. The second guy kicked him in the head as he lay on the ground. People were shouting to “get him.” The third guy hit him with his skateboard and tried to disarm him. The fourth guy pointed a firearm at him. In every case, the action was initiated by them and Rittenhouse didn’t shoot anyone who was simply standing around. His defense lawyer could rightly argue that he felt that his life was threatened. This didn’t take place at some mall or school. This was a group of rioters who committed $50 million in damages (source-the NY Times) to a town, so this was hardly a group of innocent bystanders. 

This was a pretty simple case and the jury got it right, just as they got it right in the prosecution of those morons in South Carolina who went out of their way to pursue and kill an innocent man. 

I am genuinely open to hear your thoughts on what I have shared. 

  You missed his entire point and simply doubled down on the point made by what you called the "second amendment nutjobs", though with more detail. The first shooting is the barometer to judge all the events afterwards. If its a good shoot then the pursuers were "attacking him". If the first shoot was not justified then the pursuers were "heroically putting their lives at risk" to disarm an active shooter. The opinions we had about the pursuers was defined by what we were told about the first shoot. However, reality is that those that were risking their lives to disarm him really did think they had an active shooter on their hands. Had any one of us been there we may have responded the same way.

[Dutchrudder 11149]

Calling Kyle an "active shooter" is disingenuous at best. He was running away from the first shooting location and didn't fire his gun again until he was knocked to the ground. Active shooters don't retreat, they try to inflict maximum damage by actively shooting more people.

The only way you could possibly categorize anyone attacking Kyle as a hero is if the shooter is still shooting people. He wasn't, he was running away, he wasn't holding ground or antagonizing other people. Shit just got real for him and he got scared and ran.

[TreatyOak 16389]

2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  You missed his entire point and simply doubled down on the point made by what you called the "second amendment nutjobs", though with more detail. The first shooting is the barometer to judge all the events afterwards. If its a good shoot then the pursuers were "attacking him". If the first shoot was not justified then the pursuers were "heroically putting their lives at risk" to disarm an active shooter. The opinions we had about the pursuers was defined by what we were told about the first shoot. However, reality is that those that were risking their lives to disarm him really did think they had an active shooter on their hands. Had any one of us been there we may have responded the same way.

In the jury's eyes, what Kyle's attackers were thinking was irrelevant. The jury was instructed to be concerned about what Kyle Rittenhouse was thinking, as he was the one on trial. The only thing they needed to know from the person who was "risking his life to disarm Kyle" was whether he pointed his gun first at Kyle. When he admitted that he did, that was ballgame and the verdict was inevitable. 

"Had any one of us been there we may have responded the same way." 
If I had been there, I would have been one of the people protecting the town from the rioters who caused $50 million in damage, mostly to local businesses. 

[52-80 19207]

13 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Where were these absent legal detectives when George Floyd's murder was getting YouTubed who bloom of the woodwork when Rittenhouse's subsequent rights- that wouldn't even be an issue had Chauvin not murdered Floyd- are being violated?

Firstly, what language is this that you just minced up?

But if I parsed it correctly and you were asking about GF, he was arrested on suspicion of a crime; he actively resisted arrest (on camera), necessitating further restraint; and in the course of the restraint, one of the officer used prolonged undue force that showed callousness and recklessness, contributing to his death.  That officer was correctly convicted for manslaughter and unintended murder... which sounds exactly right.

Anything wrong with that recap?

[Thatguy 8762]

2 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Calling Kyle an "active shooter" is disingenuous at best. He was running away from the first shooting location and didn't fire his gun again until he was knocked to the ground. Active shooters don't retreat, they try to inflict maximum damage by actively shooting more people.

The only way you could possibly categorize anyone attacking Kyle as a hero is if the shooter is still shooting people. He wasn't, he was running away, he wasn't holding ground or antagonizing other people. Shit just got real for him and he got scared and ran.

   Spoken like someone who has never spent one moment in a rough area. Suicidal shooters don't retreat. 99% of shooters DO retreat actually.

 

  Quick story. Out street racing one night. Not freeway street racing, real street racing done in an empty warehouse area. Cars start down at the end and come toward where the sidestreet of spectators were. A couple ruffians broke a bottle on the road. An argument about the dangers of that ensued(I know, people street racing scolding people about the dangers of glass on the road, oh the irony). Said ruffians decided they had enough talk and pulled out the guns and started popping into the crowd. We are all diving behind vehicles. One of the guys coming down the road sees the muzzle flashing and skids to a stop, only to receive a few rounds into his camaro, though he wasn't hit. Shooters scatter, so do we. We regroup in the parking lot close by, only to see one of our associates with a gunshot wound to the back of the head, face down in the parking lot. Guess he got hit while running away and kept running until he collapsed. Everyone is trying to figure out what happened, as the events were not clear quite yet. Guy with the camaro is pissed as is another guy who had a 60's Ford pickup(can't remember exactly it was a long time ago) who's vehicle caught a couple too. Just then someone sees the shooters turning onto highway 6 in a S10 pickup. Couple guys in the back of it and a couple in the cab. Guy with the camaro immediately takes off. Guy with the Ford does too. Camaro, being all hopped up, catches him immediately. S10 driver, trying to get away, does a U-turn on 6 coming back towards us. That's when Classic Ford pickup guy rams the S10 and everyone goes flying. Those guys were seen as heroes. But the reality is that none of us actually saw what happened or how it got started. The story was made clear after the dust settled. People were just reacting to some people who had just shot a dude in the back of the head. Guy running down the street with an AK just killed someone. You have no idea where he is going or what his intentions are. You can tell yourself that you would calmly assess the situation rationally with no emotion, but until you've been in the middle of some shit you have no idea what you would or wouldn't do. I've been in those more times than I would like to admit, and so I know exactly how I would feel, would react, or what I would or wouldn't do.

  You say you would be one of the ones protecting the town, but that's only because life has gone the right way for you. If suddenly you found yourself fighting for the scraps in life you would damn well take to the streets, and anyone saying that they wouldn't is lying. After all, that's what this country was founded on. I wasn't out there and had no desire to be. However, I also don't sit here all self righteously proclaiming I would never be involved. We would all be on either side of the situation given the right circumstances.

[TreatyOak 16389]

1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

   Spoken like someone who has never spent one moment in a rough area. Suicidal shooters don't retreat. 99% of shooters DO retreat actually.

 

  Quick story. Out street racing one night. Not freeway street racing, real street racing done in an empty warehouse area. Cars start down at the end and come toward where the sidestreet of spectators were. A couple ruffians broke a bottle on the road. An argument about the dangers of that ensued(I know, people street racing scolding people about the dangers of glass on the road, oh the irony). Said ruffians decided they had enough talk and pulled out the guns and started popping into the crowd. We are all diving behind vehicles. One of the guys coming down the road sees the muzzle flashing and skids to a stop, only to receive a few rounds into his camaro, though he wasn't hit. Shooters scatter, so do we. We regroup in the parking lot close by, only to see one of our associates with a gunshot wound to the back of the head, face down in the parking lot. Guess he got hit while running away and kept running until he collapsed. Everyone is trying to figure out what happened, as the events were not clear quite yet. Guy with the camaro is pissed as is another guy who had a 60's Ford pickup(can't remember exactly it was a long time ago) who's vehicle caught a couple too. Just then someone sees the shooters turning onto highway 6 in a S10 pickup. Couple guys in the back of it and a couple in the cab. Guy with the camaro immediately takes off. Guy with the Ford does too. Camaro, being all hopped up, catches him immediately. S10 driver, trying to get away, does a U-turn on 6 coming back towards us. That's when Classic Ford pickup guy rams the S10 and everyone goes flying. Those guys were seen as heroes. But the reality is that none of us actually saw what happened or how it got started. The story was made clear after the dust settled. People were just reacting to some people who had just shot a dude in the back of the head. Guy running down the street with an AK just killed someone. You have no idea where he is going or what his intentions are. You can tell yourself that you would calmly assess the situation rationally with no emotion, but until you've been in the middle of some shit you have no idea what you would or wouldn't do. I've been in those more times than I would like to admit, and so I know exactly how I would feel, would react, or what I would or wouldn't do.

  You say you would be one of the ones protecting the town, but that's only because life has gone the right way for you. If suddenly you found yourself fighting for the scraps in life you would damn well take to the streets, and anyone saying that they wouldn't is lying. After all, that's what this country was founded on. I wasn't out there and had no desire to be. However, I also don't sit here all self righteously proclaiming I would never be involved. We would all be on either side of the situation given the right circumstances.

Thanks for sharing. I will agree that we have great inequality in our society and life is not fair. Once you accept that and stop worrying about what you can’t control and focus on what you can control, you can make the most of your life. Life has “gone the right way for me” because I chose to make it so. We all have repeated opportunities and challenges, and some people make good choices and some make bad ones. The cop who killed George Floyd made a bad one. The dudes in South Carolina who murdered that poor, innocent man made bad ones. I initially believed Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty but after seeing all the footage on an NY Times YouTube documentary, I changed my mind. I don’t view Rittenhouse as a “hero”, but I agree w the jurors that he was not guilty of the charges and it wasn’t even close. My business supports and grows small local businesses across Central Texas and beyond. The people who run those businesses are incredibly inspiring people who work hard every day to make their dreams come true. Many of them are people of color or historically neglected groups. They fight injustice by making the most of their lives. They’re not out rioting and burning down small businesses like in Kenosha. Those people have chosen to be losers who will mostly never amount to anything. There are far better people who deserve our respect and protection.

[tchookem 3905]

Thanks for sharing. I will agree that we have great inequality in our society and life is not fair. Once you accept that and stop worrying about what you can’t control and focus on what you can control, you can make the most of your life. Life has “gone the right way for me” because I chose to make it so. We all have repeated opportunities and challenges, and some people make good choices and some make bad ones. The cop who killed George Floyd made a bad one. The dudes in South Carolina who murdered that poor, innocent man made bad ones. I initially believed Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty but after seeing all the footage on an NY Times YouTube documentary, I changed my mind. I don’t view Rittenhouse as a “hero”, but I agree w the jurors that he was not guilty of the charges and it wasn’t even close. My business supports and grows small local businesses across Central Texas and beyond. The people who run those businesses are incredibly inspiring people who work hard every day to make their dreams come true. Many of them are people of color or historically neglected groups. They fight injustice by making the most of their lives. They’re not out rioting and burning down small businesses like in Kenosha. Those people have chosen to be losers who will mostly never amount to anything. There are far better people who deserve our respect and protection.

So did you have the Star Spangled Badger or the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in your head when you typed this?

[TreatyOak 16389]

1 hour ago, tchookem said:

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Thanks for sharing. I will agree that we have great inequality in our society and life is not fair. Once you accept that and stop worrying about what you can’t control and focus on what you can control, you can make the most of your life. Life has “gone the right way for me” because I chose to make it so. We all have repeated opportunities and challenges, and some people make good choices and some make bad ones. The cop who killed George Floyd made a bad one. The dudes in South Carolina who murdered that poor, innocent man made bad ones. I initially believed Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty but after seeing all the footage on an NY Times YouTube documentary, I changed my mind. I don’t view Rittenhouse as a “hero”, but I agree w the jurors that he was not guilty of the charges and it wasn’t even close. My business supports and grows small local businesses across Central Texas and beyond. The people who run those businesses are incredibly inspiring people who work hard every day to make their dreams come true. Many of them are people of color or historically neglected groups. They fight injustice by making the most of their lives. They’re not out rioting and burning down small businesses like in Kenosha. Those people have chosen to be losers who will mostly never amount to anything. There are far better people who deserve our respect and protection.

So did you have the Star Spangled Badger or the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in your head when you typed this?

Star Spangled Badger?

[Hate 20128]

[immortal13 4059]

17 hours ago, zzzz said:

Perhaps you meant, "If the video and honest testimony under oath by one of the two men who heroically put their lives at risk pursuing Rittenhouse after he shot and killed someone only to be demonized as if they deserved to die for doing so by those who have made a hero out of Rittenhouse..."

What kind of incoherent shit is this?

Edited December 27, 2021 by immortal13

[immortal13 4059]

8 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  You missed his entire point and simply doubled down on the point made by what you called the "second amendment nutjobs", though with more detail. The first shooting is the barometer to judge all the events afterwards. If its a good shoot then the pursuers were "attacking him". If the first shoot was not justified then the pursuers were "heroically putting their lives at risk" to disarm an active shooter. The opinions we had about the pursuers was defined by what we were told about the first shoot. However, reality is that those that were risking their lives to disarm him really did think they had an active shooter on their hands. Had any one of us been there we may have responded the same way.

That's completely fabricated. Did you watch any of the hearing at all?

Edited December 27, 2021 by immortal13

[tchookem 3905]

Star Spangled Badger?

Written by Francis Scotch Key.

[Hornius Emeritus 12480]

Greta Thunberg and Kyle Rittenhouse were born on the very same day?

I guess the universe DOES try to stay in balance.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

10 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

I’ll let you pontificate on the made-up scenarios. I’ll stick with the facts. 

I will allow you to illustrate your refusal to state George Floyd has the same right to the use of deadly force to protect his life that Rittenhouse has. 

[immortal13 4059]

15 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I will allow you to illustrate your refusal to state George Floyd has the same right to the use of deadly force to protect his life that Rittenhouse has. 

No one ever said he didn't. Nice strawman argument, though. Maybe you should talk GF on the GF thread?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Firstly, what language is this that you just minced up?

But if I parsed it correctly and you were asking about GF, he was arrested on suspicion of a crime; he actively resisted arrest (on camera), necessitating further restraint; and in the course of the restraint, one of the officer used prolonged undue force that showed callousness and recklessness, contributing to his death.  That officer was correctly convicted for manslaughter and unintended murder... which sounds exactly right.

Anything wrong with that recap?

Nope, 3rd party video and worldwide protests later. But I'll ask again as it relates to the Rittenhouse case since there's supposedly so many people really invested in the idea that being assaulted by a skateboard is the green light threshold for using deadly force, much less being deprived of the ability to breathe-

Would you have supported Floyd using deadly force against law enforcement to protect his life?

[TwiceHorn 31514]

23 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

being assaulted by a skateboard

Why do people question this?

A skateboard, first off, is a piece of lumber, not much different from any other.  Second, it has about a half pound of aluminum and steel and polyurethane on each end in a kind of protuberant configuration.  It weighs somewhere between 5 and 10 lbs, 2-4 times the weight of a long baseball bat.

Being hit with a skateboard swung with any authority could really fuck you up.  I'm 55 years old and I know this.  Have some of you never skated?  Do you think they're plastic toys or something?

Edited December 27, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

19 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

No one ever said he didn't. 

Or did. Silence is not answering the question or clarifying your position. It's quite the Pandora's Box that the Rittenhouse defenders have invested in opening. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why do people question this?

A skateboard, first off, is a piece of lumber, not much different from any other.  Second, it has about a half pound of aluminum and steel and polyurethane on each end in a kind of protuberant configuration.

Being hit with a skateboard swung with any authority could really fuck you up.  I'm 55 years old and I know this.  Have some of you never skated?  Do you think they're plastic toys or something?

Yup. It will fuck you up. Getting hit with a billy club will fuck you up. Getting shot with rubber bullets will fuck you up. Cracking your head on the sidewalk will fuck you up...

[Bullneck 19187]

Sort of wondering how Rittenhouse's civil suit would go. 

He'd be liable for much more money than he has in legal fees alone.

Seems like an idiot move, but I'm not a lawyer.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

I’m fine with the jury finding Kyle not guilty. I trust juries.

What drives me nuts is the right wing hate machine turning this turd into some sort of hero. That to me is obscene. He is not a hero. Guilty or not. 

[TwiceHorn 31514]

8 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Yup. It will fuck you up. Getting hit with a billy club will fuck you up. Getting shot with rubber bullets will fuck you up. Cracking your head on the sidewalk will fuck you up...

So why do you use it in such a way as to diminish the threat to Rittenhouse?  I'm not a fan of Rittenhouse, but the rhetoric on this, going both ways, borders on absurd.

I think anyone being clubbed with an object like a bat or a skateboard, or threatened with it, probably has cause to respond with deadly force.

To the question of George Floyd,  no, in the first instance someone being assaulted by LEO "in the performance of their duty" has no legal right to respond with any force, deadly or otherwise.  The situation gets more complicated when the LEOs assault becomes unlawful.

The law is set up to assume that most times, the LEO is acting lawfully, and the person that is the target of their "assault" is not acting lawfully.  The first assumption is increasingly an erroneous one, these days, but the reason the law is set up that way should be obvious.

Edited December 27, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Sort of wondering how Rittenhouse's civil suit would go. 

He'd be liable for much more money than he has in legal fees alone.

Seems like an idiot move, but I'm not a lawyer.  

He’s still facing potential federal criminal prosecution based on his straw man purchase of a weapon so if I’m his lawyer I advise him to not poke the bear and file civil lawsuits. But I’m not his lawyer.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So why do you use it in such a way as to diminish the threat to Rittenhouse?  I'm not a fan of Rittenhouse, but the rhetoric on this, going both ways, borders on absurd.

I think anyone being clubbed with an object like a bat or a skateboard, or threatened with it, probably has cause to respond with deadly force.

To the question of George Floyd,  no, in the first instance someone being assaulted by LEO "in the performance of their duty" has no legal right to respond with any force, deadly or otherwise.  The situation gets more complicated when the LEOs assault becomes unlawful.

I thought the point was fairly straightforward and I probably could have made it leaving it out entirely-

IF being assaulted by someone wielding a skateboard is the danger level required to legally use deadly force...

THEN being deprived of one's ability to breathe definitely is.

 

[Guest Lobo]

^

If you can talk...you can skate, bro!

[tchookem 3905]

I’m fine with the jury finding Kyle not guilty. I trust juries.
What drives me nuts is the right wing hate machine turning this turd into some sort of hero. That to me is obscene. He is not a hero. Guilty or not. 

They love the idea of a below average lump achieving something. It doesn't have to be an actual achievement. Generating discussion on message boards and triggering libs is more than enough to be a hero.

EDIT: Also, never underestimate people's vigilante fantasies. This kid actually did it. Planned it, carried it out, and was legitimized in court.

[immortal13 4059]

44 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Or did. Silence is not answering the question or clarifying your position. It's quite the Pandora's Box that the Rittenhouse defenders have invested in opening. 

 you're on the wrong thread

[immortal13 4059]

34 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m fine with the jury finding Kyle not guilty. I trust juries.

What drives me nuts is the right wing hate machine turning this turd into some sort of hero. That to me is obscene. He is not a hero. Guilty or not. 

You keep saying this but no one on this entire board has called him a hero. Yelling at clouds and shit...

[Hate 20128]

I’m fine with the jury finding Kyle not guilty. I trust juries.
What drives me nuts is the right wing hate machine turning this turd into some sort of hero. That to me is obscene. He is not a hero. Guilty or not. 

I completely agree with this. He should go away and try to assume some sort of normal life. Our society’s fascination with “spiking the ball” on the other “team” is ridiculous. I’d be very happy if this was the last post in this thread because there is nothing to report nor anything to discuss.

[immortal13 4059]

32 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

He’s still facing potential federal criminal prosecution based on his straw man purchase of a weapon so if I’m his lawyer I advise him to not poke the bear and file civil lawsuits. But I’m not his lawyer.

"Straw man" purchase...lol