Jump to content

Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

clapclapclap

By clapclapclap
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes Kyle Rittenhouse made the serial child rapist Joseph Rosenbaum threaten to kill him and then chase him down and attempt to kill him.  That was his plan from the beginning.  

You’ve a narrow interpretation of the audio I mentioned.

KR1 stated his desire to shoot the lawbreakers among the protestors. He brought the provocation and means in one object. He acted on his desire. He was an active shooter. If the jury had heard the audio, if they had heard the motive, the narrative would be different. 

KR2 was a pos, but vigilante justice doesn’t lead to a more just society. Zimmerman redux, except Trayvon Martin wasn’t a pos. Both KR1 and GZ baited their kills.

Dont sleep on the fact that some of the lawbreakers were engaged in ratfuckery. While I don’t remember you doing so, I must also state that conflating protestors with lawbreakers is wrong. Too often, that conflation is part of this debate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Poe It Up
Poe It Up

The “I used to vote Republican” line is the CR’s version of “I have a black friend.”   

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

so, yeah, this is the problem writ large. unarmed black dude, may be a threat, shot several times in the back. armed white dude, with an assault rifle present and visible, who just shot some people, w

CORN
CORN

Kenosha's very own Sweet Corn Fest, held every August Jerry Smith Produce and Pumpkin Farm (7150 18th St.), would like you to know that they are here to support you during this difficult time. Wh

Posted Images

Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted

He did not shoot the looters he professed wanting to shoot.  He shot people who attacked him first.  The looters, vandals and rioters were everywhere that night.  He did not shoot anyone except his attackers.  So what he previously said he entirely irrelevant.  If he had shot someone for looting, maybe it is relevant.  Maybe it's admissible evidence under an exception to the rule of evidence prohibiting propensity evidence.  He did not.  He shot people attacking him.  Only those people.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He did not shoot the looters he professed wanting to shoot.  He shot people who attacked him first.  The looters, vandals and rioters were everywhere that night.  He did not shoot anyone except his attackers.  So what he previously said he entirely irrelevant.  If he had shot someone for looting, maybe it is relevant.  Maybe it's admissible evidence under an exception to the rule of evidence prohibiting propensity evidence.  He did not.  He shot people attacking him.  Only those people.

He was attacked. As was Zimmerman. I don’t think he is ignorant, rather he is cagey. 
 

 

image.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Captainant said:

TIL deacons aren't clergy? Or did you finally get honest with yourself and stop the charade

Qualifications for Deacons - 1 Timothy 3:8-13

 

"Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.”

 

Uh oh.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

   Dude, you seem to struggle with the idea that there are different kinds of shooters. Not every shooter is looking to shoot everyone. Some are only looking for certain targets. Micah Johnson was only looking to kill police officers, still made him an active shooter. Bottom line is I said they "thought" they had an active shooter situation.

  Lastly, my experience was to paint a picture of people who respond in those situations and how they are normally perceived, but you are hell bent on looking at the guys who were trying to disarm Kyle as "the aggressors" and not the guy running down the street with the AR 15, who had just blown a hole in someone's head. Which in and of itself is quite ridiculous when you really think about it.

No one was trying to "disarm an active shooter." As was proven in COURT, KR and GG had some level of discourse between them after Rosenbaum was shot that KR was going to the police. Now what "type of shooter" does that. GG knew exactly what was going on and who the aggressors were, which included him. GG watched KR being attacked by Skateboard guy and Jumpkick guy before he decided to try his luck. He chose poorly.

What you are claiming is a false narrative that was fabricated and distributed by the left wing media and GG. Again, maybe you should have watched the trial or read an accurate synopsis because what you are spewing is complete nonsense. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Qualifications for Deacons - 1 Timothy 3:8-13

 

"Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.”

 

Uh oh.

What does this have to do with the thread topic? You guys have been warned about this. No one cares if JS is a deacon or received a trust fund. Quit trying to derail this thread and dox other posters.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, zzzz said:

I said Kyle illegally purchased the gun, which he did.

Grosskruetz carried the gun because he believes in the 2A. If Kyle had indeed been an active shooter and Grosskruetz took him down, then you would be claiming that he was a "good guy with a gun." 

That's actually what Grosskruetz was that night.

 

"aggravated assault of a minor" 

So should everyone who tries to stop a school shooter then because clearly they have more context that a minor is the one doing the shooting and killing.

 

Number one, KR didn't purchase the gun.

Number two, GG was never a "good guy." He was illegally carrying a handgun and also (as came out in court) had a tear gas cannister on him. So it doesn't look like GG was simply there to be a good American and save the day. And your hypothetical school shooting analogy is so asinine it isn't worth responding to.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thatguy

Thatguy 8394

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

No one was trying to "disarm an active shooter." As was proven in COURT, KR and GG had some level of discourse between them after Rosenbaum was shot that KR was going to the police. Now what "type of shooter" does that. GG knew exactly what was going on and who the aggressors were, which included him. GG watched KR being attacked by Skateboard guy and Jumpkick guy before he decided to try his luck. He chose poorly.

What you are claiming is a false narrative that was fabricated and distributed by the left wing media and GG. Again, maybe you should have watched the trial or read an accurate synopsis because what you are spewing is complete nonsense. 

  There is a video of GG running behind KR trying to ask him what happened and KR didn't respond. That was prior to the second shooting. GG had the drop on him then and could've shot him had that been his intention. He didn't draw until after the second volley of shots. Like I said, these guys thought they were the ones doing the right thing. You guys trying to paint them as attackers are way off base. The first shooting is the judgement, the rest is both sides trying to do what they thought was right.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  There is a video of GG running behind KR trying to ask him what happened and KR didn't respond. That was prior to the second shooting. GG had the drop on him then and could've shot him had that been his intention. He didn't draw until after the second volley of shots. Like I said, these guys thought they were the ones doing the right thing. You guys trying to paint them as attackers are way off base. The first shooting is the judgement, the rest is both sides trying to do what they thought was right.

Sorry bud gotta stop you. In actual court, GG and KR both provided testimony that they DID speak to each other concerning KR claim that he was immediately going to the police.  Again, those are the facts. GG did not believe that KR was an active shooter but was simply a false narrative that he tried to perpetuate to cover himself and try to prevent his civil lawsuit from falling apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted

The Madden coverage tonight is great. “If you’re a phony, you won’t last long,” Madden said. 
 

Self defense in a fight you instigate is phony, and, hopefully, current laws won’t last long.

Brandishing a firearm at a protest is intimidation, and an instigation. I can’t square the right’s position with the ideals of this country.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The Madden coverage tonight is great. “If you’re a phony, you won’t last long,” Madden said. 
 

Self defense in a fight you instigate is phony, and, hopefully, current laws won’t last long.

Brandishing a firearm at a protest is intimidation, and an instigation. I can’t square the right’s position with the ideals of this country.

You are one delusional left winger. KR did not instigate the altercation. Your hero Pedo Rosenbaum did. Did you watch any of the trial or read up on the facts? You seem very confused or maybe just stupid?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The Madden coverage tonight is great. “If you’re a phony, you won’t last long,” Madden said. 
 

Self defense in a fight you instigate is phony, and, hopefully, current laws won’t last long.

Brandishing a firearm at a protest is intimidation, and an instigation. I can’t square the right’s position with the ideals of this country.

 You call it intimidation.  You're gotdamn right it is.  Stop tearing shit up and looting.  that isn't "protesting."

 

LMAO.  2020 was over and people have had enough of the "mostly peaceful" horseshit. Nobody gives a fuck if you can reconcile it in your mind or not.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted
Just now, slorch said:

 You call it intimidation.  You're gotdamn right it is.  Stop tearing shit up and looting.  that isn't "protesting."

 

LMAO.

Vigilantism isn’t a laughing matter, Slorch. Neither is arson and destruction. Why are either applauded and the source of mirth?

@immortal13, I have read reports of the trial, and the events being litigated. However, I haven’t seen footage of the events leading up to the initial murder. I don’t dispute that KR was attacked and hit in the head with a skateboard. Given the audio, and my take on KR’s state of mind, I came to my own conclusions. You’ve come to your’s. Be more confident in yourself. Use words and facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Vigilantism isn’t a laughing matter, Slorch. Neither is arson and destruction. Why are either applauded and the source of mirth?

@immortal13, I have read reports of the trial, and the events being litigated. However, I haven’t seen footage of the events leading up to the initial murder. I don’t dispute that KR was attacked and hit in the head with a skateboard. Given the audio, and my take on KR’s state of mind, I came to my own conclusions. You’ve come to your’s. Be more confident in yourself. Use words and facts. 

None of this is merely a matter of opinion. The court system ruled in favor of KR due to the supporting facts and testimony that he was not the instigator of the incident. But you can come to whatever delusional conclusions you want regardless of what the silly little facts say. It's what you do best. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The Madden coverage tonight is great. “If you’re a phony, you won’t last long,” Madden said. 
 

Self defense in a fight you instigate is phony, and, hopefully, current laws won’t last long.

Brandishing a firearm at a protest is intimidation, and an instigation. I can’t square the right’s position with the ideals of this country.

He was legally armed in public.  Some violent leftist pieces of shit attacked him thinking they had the right to control the streets.  They were wrong.  They fucked around.   And they found out.  
 

Kyle did society a favor. 

Edited by Johnny Sack
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

The court system ruled in favor of KR due to the supporting facts and testimony that he was not the instigator of the incident. But you can come to whatever delusional conclusions you want regardless of what the silly little facts say. It's what you do best. 

I concede your first sentence. What comes next is unpersuasive. Again, words and facts.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Kyle did society a favor. 

He saved his own life, and, despite my belief he instigated the danger to his life, the courts ruled it a series of excusable murders. No argument there.

Your last sentence? We’d find more common ground on the subject of whether JR should have walked the streets at all than that the events in Kenosha that night were a net plus to society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, slorch said:

Nobody gives a fuck if you can reconcile it in your mind or not.

So? Are you saying I should shut up? 
 

Is there an argument FOR legally instigating a fight and then using deadly force to end it? Or, have I missed something that proves to a reasonable* mind that there was no provocation other than legally (I already capped, but wanted to here,) carrying a firearm? 
 

*Reasonable meaning skeptical of everything in a politically charged era, when considering a politically motivated act.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Tat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

The courts did not rule anything a murder

I’ll concede being wrong when I’m wrong. Correct me, is not self defense a legal justification for murder? Or, is the phrasing not guilty of murder? 
 

Semantics. You’re right, maybe. He purposefully shot another human. You believe, and the law agrees, it was justified. I’ve my own thoughts, which I’ve stated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2654

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’ll concede being wrong when I’m wrong. Correct me, is not self defense a legal justification for murder? Or, is the phrasing not guilty of murder? 
 

Semantics. You’re right, maybe. He purposefully shot another human. You believe, and the law agrees, it was justified. I’ve my own thoughts, which I’ve stated.

 

Yes, it's a "confession and avoidance" defense. The defendant admits to the elements of murder but asserts the legal justification of self-defense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TreatyOak

TreatyOak 16138

Posted
Posted

The basic ignorance of how our law works that we see exhibited here by people who think Kyle Rittenhouse was unjustly acquitted is frightening to me. Our educational system has failed us. 

I highly recommend that people try to set their emotions, politics and biases aside and actually educate themselves on our judicial system and try to understand how that determined the verdict. As I've mentioned, no one here abhors Trump and his mindless acolytes more than me, but the verdict had nothing to do with politics and it was correct by fair legal standards. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21293

Posted
Posted

A lot of y'all are picking a really weird hill to die on. It was pretty obvious that this was going to be the (correct) verdict months ago.

If you want to discuss the limitations and inequities of our existing laws (i.e. the stupidity of open carry in the 22nd century), have at it. But none of that is currently reality.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7911

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

The basic ignorance of how our law works that we see exhibited here by people who think Kyle Rittenhouse was unjustly acquitted is frightening to me. Our educational system has failed us. 

I highly recommend that people try to set their emotions, politics and biases aside and actually educate themselves on our judicial system and try to understand how that determined the verdict. As I've mentioned, no one here abhors Trump and his mindless acolytes more than me, but the verdict had nothing to do with politics and it was correct by fair legal standards. 

I assume you are referring to my posts. Other than the particulars of why the audio wasn’t admitted into evidence, I think I have a fairly good understanding of why the jury reached their verdict. Perhaps rules of evidence should be taught in schools so you can feel better.

I’d feel better if armed folks could not legally provoke others, and then kill those who react to the provocation. I might be wrong, but I believe I read here that Texas differs from Florida in this regard. If so, I’m not alone in this position.
 

I’m open to the contrary argument, but it hasn’t been offered. I’m also open to learning what other legal principles I do not understand. TO, you haven’t enlightened me. 

To be clear, I mentioned the political landscape to explain my take on KR’s state of mind. I didn’t blame politics for the outcome.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

Nice to find common ground. Though I wish we could agree that open carry is not consistent with peaceable assembly.

I agree, but it is the law. The first time I ever heard of open carry I thought it seemed like a crazy idea. However GG sneaking around with an illegally concealed Glock and a tear gas cannister is no better. The posters on this thread calling him a "potential hero" trying to stop an "active shooter" are just being obtuse or are truly stupid. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TreatyOak

TreatyOak 16138

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

I assume you are referring to my posts. Other than the particulars of why the audio wasn’t admitted into evidence, I think I have a fairly good understanding of why the jury reached their verdict. Perhaps rules of evidence should be taught in schools so you can feel better.

I’d feel better if armed folks could not legally provoke others, and then kill those who react to the provocation. I might be wrong, but I believe I read here that Texas differs from Florida in this regard. If so, I’m not alone in this position.
 

I’m open to the contrary argument, but it hasn’t been offered. I’m also open to learning what other legal principles I do not understand. TO, you haven’t enlightened me. 

To be clear, I mentioned the political landscape to explain my take on KR’s state of mind. I didn’t blame politics for the outcome.

Thanks for responding. I wasn’t writing about you in particular, and I completely agree with your general argument that having morons walking around carrying guns is pretty awful and I wish we could change this today. No one needs to walk around with loaded weapons and it’s usually the most unhinged people who are doing so. 

However, this trial was not about whether guns should be legally open-carried in our society. It was about whether Kyle Rittenhouse was legally defending himself when he shot three people at a destructive riot. The trial itself was fairly simple, as it boiled down to this one thought: Could the prosecution prove that Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t feel his life was threatened? The video evidence clearly showed that his life was in fact, very threatened and he defended himself. Once all the video evidence was shared and Grosskruetz admitted that he first pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, the trial was pretty much over. Why the prosecution had Grosskruetz testify is beyond me. Perhaps one of our brilliant Surly legal minds here can enlighten me. 

Aside from the curb-stomping verdict, I also find the notion that Kyle was some kind of “active shooter” fairly laughable. This wasn’t a mall or school filled with innocent victims. This was a full-borne riot that took place over several days where looters and rioters caused more than $50 million in damages, mostly to small businesses. (source is the NY Times) 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

Thanks for responding. I wasn’t writing about you in particular, and I completely agree with your general argument that having morons walking around carrying guns is pretty awful and I wish we could change this today. No one needs to walk around with loaded weapons and it’s usually the most unhinged people who are doing so. 

However, this trial was not about whether guns should be legally open-carried in our society. It was about whether Kyle Rittenhouse was legally defending himself when he shot three people at a destructive riot. The trial itself was fairly simple, as it boiled down to this one thought: Could the prosecution prove that Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t feel his life was threatened? The video evidence clearly showed that his life was in fact, very threatened and he defended himself. Once all the video evidence was shared and Grosskruetz admitted that he first pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, the trial was pretty much over. Why the prosecution had Grosskruetz testify is beyond me. Perhaps one of our brilliant Surly legal minds here can enlighten me. 

Aside from the curb-stomping verdict, I also find the notion that Kyle was some kind of “active shooter” fairly laughable. This wasn’t a mall or school filled with innocent victims. This was a full-borne riot that took place over several days where looters and rioters caused more than $50 million in damages, mostly to small businesses. (source is the NY Times) 

Slight adjustment from me:

The trial itself was fairly simple, as it boiled down to this one thought: Could the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't have have a reasonable belief under the circumstances that he needed to use deadly force to prevent either his loss of life or serious bodily injury?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TreatyOak

TreatyOak 16138

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Slight adjustment from me:

The trial itself was fairly simple, as it boiled down to this one thought: Could the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't have have a reasonable belief under the circumstances that he needed to use deadly force to prevent either his loss of life or serious bodily injury?

Approved. Send it through editorial for proofreading. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

I'm confused as to why any university other than aggy would let him in. Seems like a bad PR move. 

Assuming he meets the academic standards, there is no reason not to let him in.  He was acquitted of all charges and was the victim of a media smear campaign.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...