Kyle Rittenhouse

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Do you think the McCloskeys should have been shot?

Fuck no

[immortal13 4059]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sure.  Every proposed policy change since trickle-down has been a "ermahgad it's a slippery slope" freakout on the part of the right.  Economics, guns, abortion, whatever.  It's constant hysteria.

And now you have the temerity to question why people might be concerned that this ruling will embolden the 2A Warriorz to come shoot up every gathering?  Really?  I mean, you are quite literally one of the smartest people on this board.  Come the fuck on.

You even acknowledged it:  "If extremists on both sides (yes I said both sides) want to shoot it out in the streets, it may as well happen now as later."  

You see it coming, and you aren't concerned?

Stupid speculation is stupid. Motion to strike

Edited November 20, 2021 by immortal13

[Sawbonz 27550]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Sure.  Every proposed policy change since trickle-down has been a "ermahgad it's a slippery slope" freakout on the part of the right.  Economics, guns, abortion, whatever.  It's constant hysteria.

And now you have the temerity to question why people might be concerned that this ruling will embolden the 2A Warriorz to come shoot up every gathering?  Really?  I mean, you are quite literally one of the smartest people on this board.  Come the fuck on.

You even acknowledged it:  "If extremists on both sides (yes I said both sides) want to shoot it out in the streets, it may as well happen now as later."  

You see it coming, and you aren't concerned?

I don’t think it’s going to happen, I was pointing out if this verdict does embolden people to shoot indiscriminately it won’t just be those on the right. But if partisan violence  does erupt it won’t be because a jury failed to convict a guy with evidence that objectively didn’t pass the reasonable doubt test. It’s absurd. Unless you think the democratic DA purposely withheld incriminating video or eyewitness testimony 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

[Sawbonz 27550]

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

Weird that you asked that today though. 

Why?

[jimmyjazz 45919]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t think it’s going to happen, I was pointing out if this verdict does embolden people to shoot indiscriminately it won’t just be those on the right. But if partisan violence  does erupt it won’t be because a jury failed to convict a guy with evidence that objectively didn’t pass the reasonable doubt test. It’s absurd. Unless you think the democratic DA purposely withheld incriminating video or eyewitness testimony 

Like most of the lefties around here, I don't have any reason to believe the jury ruled incorrectly, given the evidence and instructions they were presented, at least as far as I paid attention.  I'm completely unsurprised with the verdict.

That said, I am very concerned that we are further emboldening people to strap up and take the law into their own hands.  I think that's a perfectly reasonable take.  Is it grounds to rule the other way?  Hell no, each case stands on its own, but I'm still worried.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Do you really expect any aspect of your life or any of your decisions to change based on this verdict?

Going to be checking his mailbox everyday for his Rittenhouse prize.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Like most of the lefties around here, I don't have any reason to believe the jury ruled incorrectly, given the evidence and instructions they were presented, at least as far as I paid attention.  I'm completely unsurprised with the verdict.

That said, I am very concerned that we are further emboldening people to strap up and take the law into their own hands.  I think that's a perfectly reasonable take.  Is it grounds to rule the other way?  Hell no, each case stands on its own, but I'm still worried.

I'll co sign.

I was not surprised at the verdict. 

I do think it will embolden those that would like to do the same.

 

[4th&Five 41535]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

12 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Fuck no

Only if they were armed with skateboards.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

9 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Fuck no

You can use deadly force when threatened with deadly force but you can't use deadly force when threatened with deadly force.  

Thanks for clearing that up. 

[Sawbonz 27550]

3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

I'll co sign.

I was not surprised at the verdict. 

I do think it will embolden those that would like to do the same.

 

People who go to riots looking for trouble are going to find it. Same as it ever was

[jimmyjazz 45919]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

People who go to riots looking for trouble are going to find it. Same as it ever was

It seems reasonable to ask if they might have some responsibility for ensuing violence.

[Eastwood 4394]

2 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

I'll co sign.

I was not surprised at the verdict. 

I do think it will embolden those that would like to do the same.

 

Same.

I think the verdict is the correct one. However, he shouldn't have been there and people shouldn't celebrate him being there. He had literally no reason to be there as a 17 year old boy with zero training and not being from that area. He went there hoping someone would give him a reason and he got what he thought he wanted. He's a young kid, so I don't lay 100% of the blame in his lap. His parents deserve way more blame for Kyle being in this situation than he does.

Just add this to the ever growing list of events that further drive this nation apart. The nation is headed to a divorce much sooner than a lot of people want to admit.

[fattyflattie 4639]

12 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Guess they couldn’t find a pic of Trayvon on his first day of Kindergarden?

[Sawbonz 27550]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

It seems reasonable to ask if they might have some responsibility for ensuing violence.

Sure. And then their case will be judged on its merits just like this one was. Unless you think the courts are corrupt? If so, I guess your only option is to take up arms and get out in the street and get after it.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

People who go to riots looking for trouble are going to find it. Same as it ever was

I don't mind that so much as the ones down there being peaceful and getting beat down, gassed, shot, and otherwise violated. 

I'm from the Pete Seeger school of protests.

Banjos and songs.

 

[jimmyjazz 45919]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Sure. And then their case will be judged on its merits just like this one was. Unless you think the courts are corrupt? If so, I guess your only option is to take up arms and get out in the street and get after it.

Well, I was specifically referring to Rittenhouse.  For whatever reason, his part in inciting the violence was not pursued.  There was a dismissed weapons charge, and 5 assault/murder charges.  His intentions to look for a fight were not adjudicated.  I'm sure that's consistent with the law, but for fuck's sake, he did go there looking for a fight, he got it, he won it (multiple times) and he got off scot free.  Does this not ring hollow to you?

[ChickenSandwich 9834]

32 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

If that quote is accurate (and I don't mean just the yellow highlighted part), then it's very concerning.

It is; for the right, these are the extreme radicals hiding online and behind masks. Incels living in moms basement. They will always find something to exploit for their cause. 
 

For the left, the extreme radicals are also using it to further a cause, promoting a false narrative to exploit. The difference is the left are politicians. 
 

 

 

They should learn from Biden. His remarks were measured and reasonable. 

Edited November 20, 2021 by ChickenSandwich

[Sawbonz 27550]

1 minute ago, cactusflinthead said:

I don't mind that so much as the ones down there being peaceful and getting beat down, gassed, shot, and otherwise violated. 

I'm from the Pete Seeger school of protests.

Banjos and songs.

 

I’m with you on that. I don’t know how much of that was going on in Kenosha though. At this point, I’m not sure if those types of protests are still a thing. I was worried when my daughter went to the women’s march in downtown Dallas after the abortion bill passed because you never know when some psycho is just gonna drive their vehicle through the protesters or shoot them up. Honestly, I don’t think the type of people who would do those things give a shit about the something like the Rittenhouse verdict.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

It is; for the right, these are the extreme radicals hiding online and behind masks. Incels living in moms basement. They will always find something to exploit for their cause. 
 

For the left, the extreme radicals are also using it to further a cause, promoting a false narrative to exploit. The difference is the left are politicians. 
 

 

 

 

Ok, I'm going to be a cynical, opportunistic bastard and build on the bones of martyrs.

Go use this to get out the vote.

 

[wildcat09 29354]

And there it is.

[immortal13 4059]

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

You can use deadly force when threatened with deadly force but you can't use deadly force when threatened with deadly force.  

Thanks for clearing that up. 

  Oooooh you got me, bro!!! Lmao at your stupid cloak room logic. The couple in Missouri were defending their house from a mob. If some angry mob trespassed on my property, I would aim a gun straight fucking at them too. 

[Carl Spackler 3482]

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

It is; for the right, these are the extreme radicals hiding online and behind masks. Incels living in moms basement. They will always find something to exploit for their cause. 
 

For the left, the extreme radicals are also using it to further a cause, promoting a false narrative to exploit. The difference is the left are politicians. 
 

 

 

 

Yeah, those tweets make me shake my head as well.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m with you on that. I don’t know how much of that was going on in Kenosha though. At this point, I’m not sure if those types of protests are still a thing. I was worried when my daughter went to the women’s march in downtown Dallas after the abortion bill passed because you never know when some psycho is just gonna drive their vehicle through the protesters or shoot them up. Honestly, I don’t think the type of people who would do those things give a shit about the something like the Rittenhouse verdict.

"My fair share of abuse"

I wouldn't worry too much about her. Unless she wants to march across the bridge with some folks protesting Ferguson or the next beat down. We're due.

Tell her to bring milk for the tear gas.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

2 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

  Oooooh you got me, bro!!! Lmao at your stupid cloak room logic. The couple in Missouri were defending their house from a mob. If some angry mob trespassed on my property, I would aim a gun straight fucking at them too. 

Yeah that's BS. Their house was not at risk.

They wanted them to get off the street. 

[Sawbonz 27550]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, I was specifically referring to Rittenhouse.  For whatever reason, his part in inciting the violence was not pursued.  There was a dismissed weapons charge, and 5 assault/murder charges.  His intentions to look for a fight were not adjudicated.  I'm sure that's consistent with the law, but for fuck's sake, he did go there looking for a fight, he got it, he won it (multiple times) and he got off scot free.  Does this not ring hollow to you?

I think you’re mistaking ought and should for is. Again, unless you are asserting that the DA was corrupt, I have to assume that he made the strongest case he was able to make based on the evidence at hand. Clearly, if there were evidence that Rittenhouse was menacing or threatening, it would have been presented absent malicious intent of the prosecution.  
 

Whatever you are I think Rittenhouse should or should not have done prior to the shooting, or what we think the law ought to be, what the law is gives an individual the right to use deadly force to protect themselves in the absence of provocation 

We need less rioting and more voting
 

 

[joe dirt 285]

5 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

That does raise an odd question. If there is what I understand to be an active shooter situation and I see the guy run by and I heroically (stupidly?) tackle the guy and he kills me...is he then the innocent victim and I am the attacker just because he was not shooting or pointing a gun at me in particular? 

yes. people with ar15’s are the only ones who have the right to feel threatened.

[immortal13 4059]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, I was specifically referring to Rittenhouse.  For whatever reason, his part in inciting the violence was not pursued.  There was a dismissed weapons charge, and 5 assault/murder charges.  His intentions to look for a fight were not adjudicated.  I'm sure that's consistent with the law, but for fuck's sake, he did go there looking for a fight, he got it, he won it (multiple times) and he got off scot free.  Does this not ring hollow to you?

Not pursued? Lmao he was charged with murder, among other things, and slapped with a 2 million dollar bond. And all of the charges were dismissed (including the weapon charge) because there was not sufficient evidence to support them. This case was brought solely due to political pressure and though his rights were initially violated and he was not given the presumption of innocence, at least justice prevailed in the end. I'm sorry your pedo friend was killed...RIP and all that shit

[Anastasis 23469]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

We need less rioting and more voting

More rioting and better options to vote for, imo. 

[jimmyjazz 45919]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I think you’re mistaking ought and should for is. Again, unless you are asserting that the DA was corrupt, I have to assume that he made the strongest case he was able to make based on the evidence at hand. Clearly, if there were evidence that Rittenhouse was menacing or threatening, it would have been presented absent malicious intent of the prosecution.  
 

Whatever you are I think Rittenhouse should or should not have done prior to the shooting, or what we think the law ought to be, what the law is gives an individual the right to use deadly force to protect themselves in the absence of provocation 

I'm not unclear on the law.  I'm dismayed that we are moving towards a partially armed populace, those of whom are armed think they have the right to enact "justice" as they see it.  I think you probably agree, you just don't want to cede any ground here.

[immortal13 4059]

4 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Yeah that's BS. Their house was not at risk.

They wanted them to get off the street. 

They wanted to get them off the street? Hmm but they weren't on the street. They crashed someone's gate and were trespassing on private property. Nice try, bruh

[immortal13 4059]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not unclear on the law.  I'm dismayed that we are moving towards a partially armed populace, those of whom are armed think they have the right to enact "justice" as they see it.  I think you probably agree, you just don't want to cede any ground here.

Gage Grosskreutz was armed.....illegally 

[Anastasis 23469]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

For whatever reason, his part in inciting the violence was not pursued. 

What? Is this conclusion actually based on something factual? Is there evidence that he was inciting violence that was not pursued further or presented to the jury?

[Sawbonz 27550]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not unclear on the law.  I'm dismayed that we are moving towards a partially armed populace, those of whom are armed think they have the right to enact "justice" as they see it.  I think you probably agree, you just don't want to cede any ground here.

I would prefer fewer people to be armed in general, but I really don’t see how the Rittenhouse verdict is going to result in more indiscriminate shooting

 

I would agree that Rittenhouse should not have been there. I would further agree that if he were going to go there he should’ve gone unarmed. Past that, once he was attacked, he had the right to defend himself. Unless there is evidence that he provoked the first guy he shot, it’s clearly self-defense. If you don’t like it, work to change the law, but no evidence was presented that he initiated any of the conflict. Further, he did not shoot indiscriminately, he only shot those who attacked him.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Sawbonz

[cactusflinthead 27598]

1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

They wanted to get them off the street? Hmm but they weren't on the street. They crashed someone's gate and were trespassing on private property. Nice try, bruh

Cite? That was their claim. It was a public street.

If they're so proud of it why do they want those pictures to go away?

[jimmyjazz 45919]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What? Is this conclusion actually based on something factual? Is there evidence that he was inciting violence that was not pursued further or presented to the jury?

Well, the fact that he went there looking for a fight and got it seems to back up my point.  I'm not making a legal argument, I'm just commenting on the case as it played out.  I've already said I believe the jury ruled correctly according to the evidence presented and the instructions.

[jimmyjazz 45919]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I would prefer fewer people to be armed in general, but I really don’t see how the Rittenhouse verdict is going to result in more indiscriminate shooting

LOL wut?  Come on, man.  

[immortal13 4059]

Just now, cactusflinthead said:

Cite? That was their claim. It was a public street.

If they're so proud of it why do they want those pictures to go away?

My understanding is that they were on their front porch defending their house. If you disagree, then you go research it. You brought it up in a completely unrelated thread. I personally don't give a fuck. I'm just telling you that if someone crashes the gate on my property, they aren't going to like what gets aimed at them

[wildcat09 29354]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I would prefer fewer people to be armed in general, but I really don’t see how the Rittenhouse verdict is going to result in more indiscriminate shooting

Someone has already posted some reactions from white supremacists to this verdict that should make it pretty clear.

[jimmyjazz 45919]

4 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Cite? That was their claim. It was a public street.

If they're so proud of it why do they want those pictures to go away?

It's a gated neighborhood.  It's not "private", regardless of the gate.  My sister lives a couple of miles away, it's a typical upper class suburban "keep the darkies out" street where they leave the gate open half the time anyway.

Edited November 20, 2021 by jimmyjazz

[Sawbonz 27550]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

LOL wut?  Come on, man.  

Well I guess we’ll see

[cactusflinthead 27598]

1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

My understanding is that they were on their front porch defending their house. If you disagree, then you go research it. You brought it up in a completely unrelated thread. I personally don't give a fuck. I'm just telling you that if someone crashes the gate on my property, they aren't going to like what gets aimed at them

I was replying to you. You brought it up. Bring some evidence or stfu.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's a gated neighborhood.  It's not "private", regardless of the gate.  My sister lives a couple of miles away, it's a typical upper class suburban "keep the darkies" out street where they leave the gate open half the time anyway.

Wink wink nudge nudge

Say no more!

[jimmyjazz 45919]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Well I guess we’ll see

I'm not sure how we'll tally it up, but OK.

 

"School shooting!  Rittenhouse!  No way!"

"Cop killed a dude, another dude killed another dude, Rittenhouse!"

 

What the fuck ever.  The whole thing is depressing as hell.

[David Dennison 18856]

8 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Gage Grosskreutz was armed.....illegally 

Kyle Rittenhouse was also armed illegally.

[immortal13 4059]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's a gated neighborhood.  It's not "private", regardless of the gate.  My sister lives a couple of miles away, it's a typical upper class suburban "keep the darkies" out street where they leave the gate open half the time anyway.

Well if that's the case then no you can't aim a gun at people just walking up a street that you do not own. I had read that it was THEIR gate on THEIR property but perhaps that was incorrect reporting. Sucks that our journalists aren't very interested in reporting accurate facts. Disturbing times....

[Sawbonz 27550]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Someone has already posted some reactions from white supremacists to this verdict that should make it pretty clear.

Yeah white supremacists who are known for being otherwise pacifist, until this verdict in a case that presented no evidence that the defendant provoked anyone prior to shooting, are now because of it going to start indiscriminately shooting people? Ok

[immortal13 4059]

1 minute ago, cactusflinthead said:

I was replying to you. You brought it up. Bring some evidence or stfu.

Nope...I certainly did NOT bring up the Missouri incident

[jimmyjazz 45919]

Just now, immortal13 said:

Well if that's the case then no you can't aim a gun at people just walking up a street that you do not own. I had read that it was THEIR gate on THEIR property but perhaps that was incorrect reporting. Sucks that our journalists aren't very interested in reporting accurate facts. Disturbing times....

My God, every fucking story I read got it right.  Stop paying attention to OAN and NewsMax.