Anyone else watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?

[Herb & Suds]

No. I'm sorry I just used his words how he presented them so fuck you very much try again

Triggered!

 

[HGCC]

His home is in Indiana

GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!

 

[Fogdog]

This is why I support guns for everyone. hard for fascist paramilitary killers to wipe out people if they are armed vs unarmed. If the Jews had all had guns in their homes, the Nazi's might have had a harder time. But this isnt 1920 and we're not in Germany.

I'm guessing you don't know much about the history you speak of. In the 1920's Hitler gained patronage from wealthy capitalists to fund establishment of camps for his "brown shirt militia". He also had plenty of small donors who supported his policies. He used that well funded militia to kill and intimidate Hitler's political opposition, jews and other minority groups. Just like today, right wing assholes went out into the streets armed and under police protection to break up rallies, bust heads and carry out the occasional assassination.

By 1932, opposition to Nazi political power was effectively wiped out, setting the stage for Hitler's final grab for power when he killed off potential rivals within Nazi ranks. re: night of the long knives.

The DHS is pointedly saying armed white supremacist militias are the number one terrorist threat in the US today. It's not the same as the 1920's but history echoes, it does not repeat. That's what I said. Your fantasy of armed protests sounds like an echo from 1920's Germany. We need peaceful protests and if that doesn't work, civil disobedience. We don't need slaughter.

 

[Herb & Suds]

GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!

Or just stay there

 

[printer]

You can't make a citizen's arrest by hitting a running individual with a skateboard, rock, or soccer kick. Nor can you pull a gun on someone attempting to run from the mob. Keep in mind, a jury decided Mr. Rittenhouse had every right to defend himself against Mr. Rosenbaum's aggression, which completely erodes any notion of a "citizen's arrest". Would you enjoy police beating a fleeing suspect with a plank of wood during an unlawful arrest? Weird take

The crowd did not arm themselves and cross a state line to arrest someone. They had to use what they could. The law may be written that he is inocent, but the fact that he stuck himself right in the middle of a storm with a rifle to prove might is right.

 

[CatHedral]

No. I'm sorry I just used his words how he presented them so fuck you very much try again

You’re not very good at this, are you?

 

[Herb & Suds]

Dude you are nuts!!! I am having a hard time keeping up with typing and reading the comments as it is

Frankly
That surprises none of us in this thread
Sorry

 

[hanimmal]

Dude you are nuts!!! I am having a hard time keeping up with typing and reading the comments as it is

 

[Herb & Suds]

In general, you don't have the right to use deadly force when protecting property. Self-defense is triggered when you are attacked by another individual. You can certainly go there and counter-protest with your legal firearms.

But what if as I approach I feel threatened and am much more comfortable from a sniper position

You are advocating vigilantes period

 

[Applesauceisgood]

The crowd did not arm themselves and cross a state line to arrest someone. They had to use what they could. The law may be written that he is inocent, but the fact that he stuck himself right in the middle of a storm with a rifle to prove might is right.

The "crossing state line" point has zero bearing on anything. Many of the rioters were "crossing state lines". Mr. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. His father lived in Kenosha. He had more of a right to be there than any violent rioter did. It's a weird take and you're right, not supported by law (thankfully).

 

[mooray]

Thankfully the jury reached the right conclusion based on evidence and not what they subjectively felt. I don't understand your pov. The evidence showed he was acting in self-defense but you think his actions were suspicious. So what? The jury's verdict means he is innocent. We are a country of laws. "The jury's verdict doesn't mean he is innocent, just that he's not guilty as charged." <

With the reckless homicide, the reckless action only needs to be a significant contributor to the homicide, regardless of provocation or self-defense. The only way he could be found not-guilty of reckless homicide is if you don't believe he acted recklessly, which means you believe it's generally safe for untrained minors to bring their AR to the streets during a riot to act as armed security.

 

[Fogdog]

The victim is Mr. Rittenhouse. He was violently attacked and his right to self-defense was reaffirmed under law. A just outcome.

that is your opinion, man.

When one objectively looks at what Rittenhouse did the night he shot three and killed two. His actions that night were what a guilty person does.

 

[Herb & Suds]

The "crossing state line" point has zero bearing on anything. Many of the PROTESTERS were "crossing state lines". Mr. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. His father lived in Kenosha. He had more of a right to be there than any violent PROTESTERS did. It's a weird take and you're right, not supported by law (thankfully).

Fify

 

[Fogdog]

The "crossing state line" point has zero bearing on anything. Many of the rioters were "crossing state lines". Mr. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. His father lived in Kenosha. He had more of a right to be there than any violent rioter did. It's a weird take and you're right, not supported by law (thankfully).

I will point out that Rittenhouse was a fugitive from justice when he was arrested. Crossing state lines to get away from justice is what guilty people do.

 

[BodegaBud]

I’m actually laughing my ass off trying to type on a pos little phone and keep up with the conversation and you are saying I’m able to do it x4. Really? Why the fuck would anyone do that? I’m arguing a point I don’t win or lose either way if you do or don’t agree. I’m not going to give credit my point to somebody else

 

[piney420]

that is your opinion, man.

When one objectively looks at what Rittenhouse he shot three and killed two. His actions that night were what a guilty person does.

Actually it's the opinion of the court as well.

 

[CatHedral]

But what if as I approach I feel threatened and am much more comfortable from a sniper position

You are advocating vigilantes period

Not a practical worry unless you’re more than one person. Then you can have a sniper behind a messenger.

 

[Kerowacked]

With the reckless homicide, the reckless action only needs to be a significant contributor to the homicide, regardless of provocation or self-defense. The only way he could be found not-guilty of reckless homicide is if you don't believe he acted recklessly, which means you believe it's generally safe for untrained minors to bring their AR to the streets during a riot to act as armed security.

It may not be safe but its legal. Perhaps the jury, judge and prosecutor, having seen their city in flames last year, were all biased, recognizing other faces in the mob, Community standards.

 

[Herb & Suds]

Actually it's the opinion of the court as well.

One ancient judge who is trying to get re-elected

 

[Applesauceisgood]

But what if as I approach I feel threatened and am much more comfortable from a sniper position

You are advocating vigilantes period

It seems you don't understand the basis of English and American common law and the application of self-defense. Are you engaging with me in bad faith? Take a peek at the law and your rights and find the part that says you can approach a crowd, subjectively feel threatened, and open fire. You are acting unhinged. Mr. Rittenhouse was running, chased, and defended himself. The law agrees. I wouldn't advise any adult to consider you hypothetical. Mr. Rittenhouse was not a vigilante, that is a fact.