Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13666349)

Even if you believe that the particular circumstances of the event led to a just verdict in Rittenhouse's case, I think one would have to be at the very least deluded to believe that Greene's statement of praise for Rittenhouse is not a call for others to take up arms and assassinate protesters.

Greene herself has called publicly for the murder of her political opponents and for advocates of vaccination mandates. How blind would one have to be to believe her singling out Rittenhouse (whom she also recommended for a congressional medal for "protecting the people of Kenosha") is not a call for combat and bloodshed?

Even if one believes that under the circumstances, Rittenhouse's actions were not illegal, the difference between that and calling them worthy of public adulation is huge, and yes, it's offensive.

Aside from all this, I believe even if you were a supporter of Greene, you would go along with this. She makes a concerted effort, after all, to be as offensive as possible to those whose deaths she publicly seeks. If you do not consider her remarks offensive, you might as well be accusing her of failure.

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 13666350)

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13666351)

The best part is, the comment was attributed to Boebert, not MTG.

This place is a real think-tank of critical thought, I'll tell you.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666353)

Again,. none of that is using deadly force to protect property.

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 13666357)

He specifically stated the only reason he went to the event was to Protect Property, and he brought a gun. Didn't the Car lot owners buy insurance to protect their property, is Kyle and Insurance agent or a Police Officer ir just a Vigilante who got into more than he bargained for?

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13666349)

Even if one believes that under the circumstances, Rittenhouse's actions were not illegal, the difference between that and calling them worthy of public adulation is huge, and yes, it's offensive.

Originally Posted by eerok (Post 13666365)

I agree. Rittenhouse was an idiot to go armed to the riots, and anyone who praises him for it is doubly an idiot, or worse.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666362)

There is a difference between using deadly force to protect property, and using non deadly force to protect property that leads to an altercation where one uses deadly force to protect their life.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666362)

There is a difference between using deadly force to protect property, and using non deadly force to protect property that leads to an altercation where one uses deadly force to protect their life.

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 13666405)

Wouldn't having a Camera instead of a gun have protected the property much better?
Why wasn't he documenting the Protests instead of waving a gun around in Public?

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666409)

I have no opinion on that. My interest is limited to the implications he used deadly force to protect property.

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 13666415)

Truth is he didn't protect the property he ran, he could have documented the destruction and who caused it, but he ran, after someone was shot, he didn't dial 911 and ask help he ran.
The victims are the ones who were shot and Injured because of someone untrained and irresponsible, who valued property over life.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666420)

Except for the part where he did not use deadly force to protect property. As you said, he ran.

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 13666425)

The hard Truth is if he had stayed home people would still be Alive.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666420)

Except for the part where he did not use deadly force to protect property. As you said, he ran.

Originally Posted by sackett (Post 13666435)

Chainsaw my man, you are bobbing for reason, and you'll only get your face wet.

My take on wee Karl Scheissmaul, the Boy Brownshirt, is simpler, and based on firearms technology: An AR15 or a clone thereof is useless for any purpose* but shooting people. So says this gunsmith's son and plenty of people agree.



* Okay, you can take one to the range and turn money into smoke (as a poster here once put it) bing-banging at targets. Boring, wasteful, adolescent shooting. No wonder it appealed to the likes of Kerl Scheissimhosen.

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13666355)

Excuse me for mixing them up. They seem like peas in a pod. It's true that it seems Boebert has not publicly called for others to be assassinated, only praised those who do, but I was careless....

Originally Posted by surrogate (Post 13666370)

What is wrong with you leftist clowns, how could you get the blonde pile of **** confused with the brunette pile of ******

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666430)

Again, I have no opinion about that. I'm only concerned about the argument he used deadly force to defend property.

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13666620)

Technically it would seem you are right, hence the controversial verdict. But one could also say that if he was on a mission to protect property, took a deadly weapon to that job, and ended up using it in connection with that job, it was an invitation to bloodshed that began with him.

I think he squeaked through a passive-aggressive loophole, creating a situation in which he could do what he did, and even if the verdict was necessary under the circumstances, I would still consider him blameworthy.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666667)

I'm not sure it is a loophole

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13666765)

I rather think it is, in the sense that by showing up with a gun, he was the author of an event for which he was then able to disclaim responsibility. Of course we can't know for sure how he thought or anticipated, but we do know he decided to go to a demonstration where mayhem could be expected, and brought an automatic weapon. I am guessing that had the event under question not occurred, he would have continued until something like it did, and the fact that he managed to get away with shooting 3 people owing to their intemperance before acting on his own counts as a loophole.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13666784)

Sorry, I was a little pithy. I think the people who have worked to expand self defense law are content that the situation you described occurred.This is a feature to them, not a bug.

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13666765)

I rather think it is, in the sense that by showing up with a gun, he was the author of an event for which he was then able to disclaim responsibility. Of course we can't know for sure how he thought or anticipated, but we do know he decided to go to a demonstration where mayhem could be expected, and brought an automatic weapon. I am guessing that had the event under question not occurred, he would have continued until something like it did, and the fact that he managed to get away with shooting 3 people owing to their intemperance before acting on his own counts as a loophole.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13666308)

I don't find her comment offensive at all. I don't want to get too far into the Rittenhouse case, but he was found not guilty of all charges. And a Christian saying "God bless him" is really no big deal.

Certainly there is plenty of legitimate criticism to lob at her, but this isn't one of those cases, imo.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13666831)

The comment itself isn't offensive; the motive behind it is. It's just her contribution to the lionizing of Rittenhouse by the right wing as some kind of "patriot" hero. You know, like this from Tucker C:

"The picture that emerges is of a working-class kid who sincerely believes in America. His community falls apart, and he tries his best to do the right thing, at a time when almost no one else in the community is trying to do the right thing. But he does. And in return for that, the state, under political pressure, throws him in prison."

Rittenhouse is being used for political purposes all right...by the likes of TC, Boebert, and MTG who wants him to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. For what? Making a stupid decision as a minor to get a gun through illegal means and put himself where he had no business being.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13666835)

Well, I can see your point about politicizing these cases...but this is also done frequently by the left.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13666835)

I think this is being blown out of proportion. Now, some of Boebert's other comments are simply ridiculous. Especially the elevator story.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13666851)

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13666835)

Well, I can see your point about politicizing these cases...but this is also done frequently by the left. I think this is being blown out of proportion. Now, some of Boebert's other comments are simply ridiculous. Especially the elevator story.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13666854)

Like clockwork. Point out Dem hypocrisy, and the magic word comes out.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, both sides should avoid politicizing such cases"...we get this garbage. It's pathetic.

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 13666855)

Boebert's a clown. You know this.

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 13666867)

The GOP and its base are ready and willing to go full on Nazi given enough political cover. And Glenn Greendouche will cheer them on.

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 13666855)

Boebert's a clown. You know this.

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13668482)

What do you got againts clowns?

Originally Posted by MTG

@NancyMace is the trash in the GOP Conference," tweeted the Georgia Republican about her colleague from South Carolina on Tuesday morning. "Never attacked by Democrats or RINO's (same thing) because she is not conservative, she's pro-abort. Mace you can back up off of @laurenboebert or just go hang with your real gal pals, the Jihad Squad. Your out of your league.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13666340)

Put it another way: what has Rittenhouse done for MTGs constituents that would justify her spending time asking publicly for his blessing?
Surely there are people in her district more deserving than Rittenhouse.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13669046)

Seems to me it's only a matter of time before Boebert, MTG, or some other fashy grandstander physically accosts someone on the Congressional floor, like the famous caning by Brooks.

People like Omar and AOC would probably be well advised to learn some basic martial arts or arm themselves to be able to defend themselves from some assault/political stunt by these losers.

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13669088)

I'd strongly advise such persons not to arm themselves, since that would provide an excuse for assault, if not, in these strange days, a defense for self-defense. Don't expect to win a pissing contest with someone who is full of it.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13669093)

The type of people that support these freaks see little dishonor in beating the snot out of some totally defenseless. In fact, decisively shutting up some wimp who dared challenge their worldview is probably something that would make them very happy. Brooks gave a defenseless Sumner a debilitating TBI during a premeditated attack and was lauded as a hero of the slave South for doing so.

I would see little benefit in being open about such training or arming, but a lot in doing so. You don't actually have to strut around showing off like a right wing psycho to be able to defend yourself.

There's no reason to threaten violence or be provocative, but they should be thinking carefully about how they will deal with violent aggression from the right that increasingly seems inevitable. People like Omar or AOC would be the first to be targeted should such a complete breach of civility occur, there's really no way for them to "wait and see". The right is telegraphing this quite clearly.

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13669171)

Omar, Cortez and co. are considered by many a threat by their very existence. I would confidently expect that if any were known to carry a weapon, it would be perceived as such a threat that they would be gunned down pre-emptively, and their murderers congratulated, if not awarded medals.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13669183)

Talk about fear-mongering. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Venom (Post 13669205)

You have to suspect that people like MTG and Boebert and their supporters are trying to see how far they can push this behavior short of shooting someone on the House floor.

Honestly, can you say that their most rabid fans wouldn't be laughing and clapping if Omar or AOC were maimed by a MAGA terrorist? Go look at the rightwing response to AOC's past sexual assault and tell us they wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13669183)

Talk about fear-mongering. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Venom (Post 13669205)

You have to suspect that people like MTG and Boebert and their supporters are trying to see how far they can push this behavior short of shooting someone on the House floor.

Honestly, can you say that their most rabid fans wouldn't be laughing and clapping if Omar or AOC were maimed by a MAGA terrorist? Go look at the rightwing response to AOC's past sexual assault and tell us they wouldn't.

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 13669221)

How is it fear mongering to you? You promote it.

My family was involved in it. You have no idea what that means. Rebelling against a government is not what you think it is. What do you think this is?

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_...1200/image.jpg