Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4999

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Also of being a minor in illegal possession of a gun in Kenosha, WI. That’s beyond dispute. 

If you are old enough to be charged as an adult, then you are old enough to have the rights of an adult. This dude is a complete tool and probably wanted to "go shoot some looters, yeehaw!", but he is probably also technically not guilty of murder. But I have reservations about our societies willingness to try people as adults while simultaneously denying the the rights of adults.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Satoshi
Satoshi

Horrible situation that night. He will be acquitted. The dumbest guy in all this was the one who brought a skateboard to a gun fight. The definition of FAFO

Satoshi
Satoshi

Shots had already been fired at the point of the skateboard guy getting involved. So yeah it reached the level of gun fight at the point he got involved. Not sure what you don’t understand about that.

Brian Fantana
Brian Fantana

I just want to add that I'm not here to pillory Kyle Rittenhouse. He is a fucking child. A child. I had an extensive conversation about this with a good friend of mine who is a juvenile defender by pr

Posted Images

conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21477

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If you are old enough to be charged as an adult, then you are old enough to have the rights of an adult. This dude is a complete tool and probably wanted to "go shoot some looters, yeehaw!", but he is probably also technically not guilty of murder. But I have reservations about our societies willingness to try people as adults while simultaneously denying the the rights of adults.

I agree with this.  If I can be drafted into the military, or be executed for committing a crime, I should also be able to have a drink or throw some dice.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13626

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You people are insane.  

You've been all over this thread as if it's the end-all-be-all, spastic fuckmunch, ignoring salient questions/points only to pop back up later with selective replies. I've replied to yours, even conceding a point while pointing out the order of magnitude false equivalency. 

I've pointed out your don't-disarm contradictions to your ghosting. You seem super, almost exclusively invested in this case yet when I point out that those who have successfully created this chest-bowing Guntopia have a responsibility to create crystal clear guidance on the myriad of scenarios where the question of whether an American can shoot or disarm another American, you're silent again only to pop up later pom-poning a 3-0 chant and cringe presenting yourself as someone opposed to pedophilia tho the party you support is the most infested and doesn't even present a speed bump from you supporting it.

Did you ever figure out whether you supported the actions of Zimmerman whom attacked a minor- actions you falsely claimed to oppose. You were asked, I think twice, yet in your fairy-mare reality where Rodney Reed raped half the women of Bastrop, we can only guess. 

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

staboner 5084

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:


How many posts do you have in these two threads?

Methinks you may be projecting.

yeah its easy to see what gets people's rocks off on here. 

the celebration of death riding along the guiding light of individuality is some kind of strange shit man.

ya'll homies be cool. jam it out now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

Echos how a lot of us feel.  Don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit.  Carrying that kind of gun into Kenosha was just asking for trouble.

He didn’t start shit.  The racist serial kiddie rapist did.  Kyle finished it though.  

Edited by Johnny Sack
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Diablo

El Diablo 4232

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If you are old enough to be charged as an adult, then you are old enough to have the rights of an adult. This dude is a complete tool and probably wanted to "go shoot some looters, yeehaw!", but he is probably also technically not guilty of murder. But I have reservations about our societies willingness to try people as adults while simultaneously denying the the rights of adults.

I don't know about IL but in WI the age of consent is 18. This pastry wasn't old enough to FUCK legally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, conVINCEd said:

Go fuck yourself while you’re taking a break you fucking troll.

Apparently this guy is like Keyser Soze or something to the DT crowd. He is being protected by them like their life depends on it. One of the more obvious socks I’ve ever seen here. 

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

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted (edited)

And by the way a lot of cloak roomers name called and negged me when I said there are plenty of times when it is justified to shoot someone without a weapon. Go look in the DT Rittenhouse thread in late august 2020.  Or ask Jimmy.  He said anyone who shoots someone who isn’t armed is a pussy.  
 

Apparently their beliefs about that are malleable.  

Edited by Johnny Sack
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And by the way a lot of cloak roomers name called and negged me when I said there are plenty of times when it is justified to shoot someone without a weapon. Go look in the DT Rittenhouse thread in late august 2020.  Or ask Jimmy.  He said anyone who shoots someone who isn’t armed is a pussy.  

I don’t remember what I posted on this board in August 2020. But if I said something wrong then I’ll retract it, whatever it may have been.  I hope the board will forgive me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Was at a soccer game.  7th grade.  Just picked up Escalantes and heading home.  You drinking?

Sounds like a nice evening.

Just finished dinner and drinking a glass of Cabernet. Watching saving private Ryan. They just now found him.  Nice little Thursday evening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If Rittenhouse had gotten shot would it have been justified?

No.  Because Rittenhouse was justified in using self defense.  You don’t get to shoot him for that.  He was running away and not threatening anyone.  And Gail, the guy who tried to shoot him, didn’t even witness him shoot Rosenbaum.  He wouldn’t therefore have a reasonable belief of either a self defense.  His basis is what, the words of an angry mob?  That ain’t good enough.  Now if he was standing around not chasing Kyle and Kyle leveled his rifle at him, he would have an airtight case.  
 

You don’t get to shoot someone for exercising self defense. Especially when you didn’t even witness it and you’re joining an angry mob saying “cranium him” and “get him”.  Especially when they’ve run away and trip and fall.  Especially after he’s told you he’s running to the cops.  I don’t believe that’s reasonable in my view.  That’s being a vigilante with no real basis for believing you are in mortal danger. 
 

I’m consistent on self defense. Babbitt.  The black guy who shot at the cops who were shooting rubber bullets without identifying themselves. The guy with Breonna Taylor who shot at cops in the no knock raid.  All self defense.  

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

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

By someone who felt threatened by Kyle's actions.

It would need to be a reasonable belief.  You can’t charge him and shoot him if he’s on the ground after getting assaulted and claim self defense.  If he levels his rifle at you without provocation, yeah, light him up.  None of that happened though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4999

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I don't know about IL but in WI the age of consent is 18. This pastry wasn't old enough to FUCK legally. 

Point of clarification, he can't have sex with someone over 18 (or they may have a caveat that as long as the adult is with two years or something of the minor it's ok like Texas does). He is legally allowed to have sex with someone his own age. Doesn't mean he has the ability to, but the law allows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19530

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

No.  Because Rittenhouse was justified in using self defense.  You don’t get to shoot him for that.  He was running away and not threatening anyone.  And Gail, the guy who tried to shoot him, didn’t even witness him shoot Rosenbaum.  He wouldn’t therefore have a reasonable belief of either a self defense.  His basis is what, the words of an angry mob?  That ain’t good enough.  Now if he was standing around not chasing Kyle and Kyle leveled his rifle at him, he would have an airtight case.  
 

You don’t get to shoot someone for exercising self defense. Especially when you didn’t even witness it and you’re joining an angry mob saying “cranium him” and “get him”.  Especially when they’ve run away and trip and fall.  Especially after he’s told you he’s running to the cops.  I don’t believe that’s reasonable in my view.  That’s being a vigilante with no real basis for believing you are in mortal danger. 
 

I’m consistent on self defense. Babbitt.  The black guy who shot at the cops who were shooting rubber bullets without identifying themselves. The guy with Breonna Taylor who shot at cops in the no knock raid.  All self defense.  

What if you don't buy his self-defense argument?

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

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What if you don't buy his self-defense argument?

I believe he has proved it by clear and convincing evidence.  But he doesn’t even have to.  I don’t see how any jury can think he wasn’t acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don’t see it.  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4999

Posted
Posted

If he was truly running away and was chased down and assaulted, then I don't think they would have been justified. Sure, a citizen can help apprehend a fleeing criminal, but they cannot just assault them. Hitting him with a skateboard is out, but drawing a gun on him to try and stop him is probably justified. Had the other guy shot him as he turned to point his rifle at him he would probably have been justified in shooting him. That's one of the risks you assume in using a gun to try and apprehend a suspected criminal. It's also one of the reasons most folks advise you not to get involved at all.

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

David Dennison 19530

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I believe he has proved it by clear and convincing evidence.  But he doesn’t even have to.  I don’t see how any jury can think he wasn’t acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don’t see it.  

There's plenty of reasonable doubt if you don't buy his argument.

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

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)

I’m not sure why y’all are arguing with the sack on this case. He has made his views abundantly clear and if Jesus Christ himself came down and said doughboy Kyle was guilty the sack would nail him to the cross. 
 

To me it’s a close case and while I’m pissed at the judge now due to his antics, I’ll abide by whatever the jury says here. It’s a close case and no one here has watched the whole trial, at least I hope not.

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19530

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m not sure why y’all are arguing with the sack on this case. He has made his views abundantly clear and if Jesus Christ himself came down and said doughboy Kyle was guilty the sack would nail him to the cross. 
 

To me it’s a close case and while I’m pissed at the judge now due to his antics, I’ll abide by whatever the jury says here. It’s a close case and no one here has watched the whole trial, at least I hope not.

Yeah. 

He had no business being in Kenosha, though.

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

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah. 

He had no business being in Kenosha, though.

Of course not. His decision to be there set this whole shitshow in motion. And if this was a civil trial and he had a dollar to collect it would be a no brainer decision against him for being a total idiot.
 

Criminal law though, it is a close call on most counts. I might find him guilty, but I’d have to be on the jury and hear all the evidence before concluding that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13626

Posted
Posted

I'm guessing the McCloskeys should have been shot since they were pointing a weapon at demonstrators who were posing no threat yet there was property damage to a neighborhood gate but it was communal property so ya need to prorate that out and determine whether that is felony or misdemeanor looting and in the Georgia Arbery case the shooting was justified because Arbery attacked but he attacked those threatening him with a gun so his attack was justified yet those threatening him with a gun were protecting property they spot calculated was of felony value that conditionally trumps that in lieu of a 4th party witnessing thru happenstance in which case the 4th party can shoot the gun owners.

Ya got what you wanted, gun rights peeps. Gun Freedom Land. Whatever ya gotta do, the onus is on you to make clear, BEFOREHAND, in every scenario, when you can shoot someone, when you can point a gun at someone, when you disarm someone, if you can tell someone you're gonna kill them while armed, can they take you at your word and shoot you first, can someone who has received a death threat make a reasonable assumption that person is armed...

Plot out the Decision Tree graph and drink up the freedom. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34748

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Back to the surly we love.  Calling out a poster for trolling and being lazy by trolling and being lazy.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/usa-today-correction-fact-check-biden-watch

""Corrections & Clarifications: This story was updated Sept. 2 to note that Biden checked his watch multiple times at the dignified transfer event, including during the ceremony itself," the correction read at the top of the report on Thursday"

fuck outta here about lazy.  i watched the 41 minute cspan video of the event.  biden was on frame ~20 or so minutes.  he checked his watch once, right near the end, just as i said.  could he have checked his watch another 12 times while off frame?  yeah, maybe, i guess. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 28217

Posted
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

Because not everyone is buying his story.

Who is talking about “his story?”

There is video of him on the ground taking a jump kick to the head 

There is video of him being hit in the head with a skateboard 

I believe the dude he shot in the arm admitted under oath drawing a handgun on him

Explain how a person’s reason for being in a public place would nullify that person’s right to protect themselves from any of the above?

Are you arguing he initiated any of the violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19530

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sawbonz said:

Who is talking about “his story?”

There is video of him on the ground taking a jump kick to the head 

There is video of him being hit in the head with a skateboard 

I believe the dude he shot in the arm admitted under oath drawing a handgun on him

Explain how a person’s reason for being in a public place would nullify that person’s right to protect themselves from any of the above?

Are you arguing he initiated any of the violence?

It's a shame we can't ask the two witnesses who would know best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...