Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

webfusion said:
In the 1700's, the term "Well-Regulated" did not mean "organized according to Regulations"

Please do not conflate today's understanding of what "regulated" means (as in, laws and ordinances and statutes) with the plain language of the Founding Fathers who inserted that clause to the Bill of Rights.

In the day and age of muskets, to be "well-regulated" meant to have a group of citizens, with weapons at the ready and knowing how to use them, with the proper equipment to allow those muskets to be deployed as required to enforce the Security of a Free State (i.e.- nation) against enemies, foreign and domestic.

Well-Regulated indicated an adequate supply of musket balls (each one poured by hand from molten metal into a mold/casting). It also required a source of black powder. And flints. And wadding.
Plus, you could not be alone, it was imperative to be with others, who also were organized in a well-regulated manner (i.e. -- also having all the required accoutrements to allow the proper functioning of a musket brigade).

Kyle Rittenhouse was well-regulated. No doubt about it.
Click to expand...

I think that since the majority of people writing the constitution were 'English', they would have meant by militia what they were familiar with as a militia in England. Essentially a part time volunteer army organised by the local government, since following the civil war the English crown was not allowed to maintain a standing army. A military formation intended for home defence and internal security but which could be converted to full time regiments for overseas action. Pretty similar to the current national guard.

The well regulated applies to the militia, by definition no single individual forms a militia. It is the militia that is well regulated not the individual.
 
Tippit said:
Perhaps you can explain why he had any less of a right to be in Kenosha as the raging mob - many of whom ANTIFA bussed in from other states to cause mayhem - that was in the process of lighting the city on fire. Beside the fact that this is the United States and we have the right to freedom of movement, Rittenhouse's father and extended family lived and worked in Kenosha. So not only did Rittenhouse have the right to be there, he had a reason to be there.

Rosenbaum, who just happened to have served 14 years in prison for child molestation, threatened to kill Rittenhouse and attacked him, as did Huber, another ex-con who was convicted of domestic abuse and assaulting his own brother. Grosskreutz then confronted him with a pistol for which his CWP had expired. What "right" did those three have to be there that Rittenhouse did not have? The answer is none.
Click to expand...


As a 17-year-old he was not legally permitted to buy an AR15. He acquired his gun by staging an straw purchase in violation of federal and state law, for which his co-conspirator has been charged with two felonies. If he didn't have his gun, he wouldn't have been in Kenosha, at least at that place and time, and two people would have lived.
https://www.wisn.com/article/man-fa...ittenhouse-used-in-kenosha-shootings/36534614

Rosenbaum's history doesn't justify killing him in the street, and even if it somehow did, Rittenhouse didn't know about it, nor about Huber.

Here's a question: If Grosskreutz had gotten off a well-aimed shot as Rittenhouse raised his AR15 at him and dropped him where he stood, would you agree Grosskreutz was entitled to claim self-defense? Or does it only work in one direction?
 
Last edited:
Tippit said:
Firepower needed in the face of angry swarming (and armed) mobs.
Click to expand...

You do realize both of the people Rittenhouse killed were unarmed? You do realize that if Rittenhouse were unarmed that all of them would be alive?

And the 25 victims of BLM/ANTIFA mob violence, do you care about them?
Click to expand...

The fact that you conflate BLM with ANTIFA pretty much demonstrates your level of comprehension (zero)

There is a good reason why we have guns in this country, and that is becoming more and more apparent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because a large segment of our population equates guns with God. That was already answered. Both are necessary in a reasonable society.

The real tragedy of our self-defense laws, which this verdict illustrates, is that guns are so revered that our laws codify the ensuing bloodbath. If Rittenhouse's victims had been armed and shot him, they too would have gotten acquitted. So, the moral is, everyone should arm themself to the hilt. Because anyone armed with a gun simply has to proclaim that their fear is "that my gun will be taken from me" and that is enough to justify homicide of any unarmed person in your immediate vicinity, doesn't matter how they get there.
 
Bob001 said:
Here's a question: If Grosskreutz had gotten a well-aimed shot off as Rittenhouse raised his AR15 at him and dropped him where he stood, would you agree Grosskreutz was entitled to claim self-defense? Or does it only work in one direction?
Click to expand...

Bingo! It most definitely would have been self defense. Moral of the story--shoot first, think about it later.
 
Bob001 said:
Sure seems like Angry White Men are the only ones who can kill people in the streets and be acclaimed as heroes. You really think Rittenhouse would have walked if he had been black?
Click to expand...

I think he might have, with the right jury and lawyers. He definitely would not have walked past the cops at the scene, and he might not have made bail, but he could have got off. Cause in the hierarchy of protecting guns vs protecting racial supremacy, guns take priority. They are deemed necessary to protect the latter ;)
 
Bob001 said:
As a 17-year-old he was not legally permitted to buy an AR15. He acquired his gun by staging an straw purchase in violation of federal and state law, for which his co-conspirator has been charged with two felonies. If he didn't have his gun, he wouldn't have been in Kenosha, at least at that place and time, and two people would have lived.
https://www.wisn.com/article/man-fa...ittenhouse-used-in-kenosha-shootings/36534614
Click to expand...

Good point, except for the part where you assume that he might not have been in Kenosha at that place and time, given that most of his paternal family is in Kenosha. Absent his weapon, he may have just been another anonymous ANTIFA/BLM murder mob victim.

Rosenbaum's history doesn't justify killing him in the street, and even if it somehow did, Rittenhouse didn't know about it, nor about Huber.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it did not, neither did the legality of Rittenhouse's possession of the weapon bear on the fact that he acted in self-defense. If Rosenbaum didn't attack the clearly well-armed Rittenhouse, neither he nor Huber would have died, in all likelihood. Moral of the story? Don't attack someone armed with a rifle, even if you're part of a violent angry mob of arsonists and have extreme numbers on your side.

Here's a question: If Grosskreutz had gotten off a well-aimed shot as Rittenhouse raised his AR15 at him and dropped him where he stood, would you agree Grosskreutz was entitled to claim self-defense? Or does it only work in one direction?
Click to expand...

Not unless Rittenhouse posed a direct threat to Grosskreutz or anyone else (note that this does not include anyone who decided that it was a good idea to attack him because they were part of a baying mob). Once the mob attacks, and it can be established that you're part of the mob, you lose the right to self-defense.

Since Rittenhouse dispatched the most violent thugs in the mob, the ones who actually decided to attack him, and then stopped his action after the attacks were over, it's pretty clear that he wasn't there to murder anyone. If Rittenhouse continued his attacks on the mob, then Grosskreutz or anyone else who was capable would be justified in defending themselves against Rittenhouse, but that didn't happen.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Not if you just stay home..
Click to expand...

We don't need to stay home. I have just as much right to exist as any mob does. If an angry mob decides to torch my neighborhood and light my neighbors homes on fire, then you're going to see a lot of dead rioters. The difference is that I won't wait until I am on my back in the middle of the street surrounded by them.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
You do realize both of the people Rittenhouse killed were unarmed? You do realize that if Rittenhouse were unarmed that all of them would be alive?
Click to expand...

You don't know that, nor would it be likely that Rittenhouse would have either been alive and also escaped great bodily injury.

The fact that you conflate BLM with ANTIFA pretty much demonstrates your level of comprehension (zero)
Click to expand...

I am aware that there are nominal differences between BLM and ANTIFA, but they are both Marxist revolutionary organizations acting under the guise of "racial justice".

Yeah, because a large segment of our population equates guns with God. That was already answered. Both are necessary in a reasonable society.

The real tragedy of our self-defense laws, which this verdict illustrates, is that guns are so revered that our laws codify the ensuing bloodbath. If Rittenhouse's victims had been armed and shot him, they too would have gotten acquitted.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The actions of individuals within large raging mobs are going to be held under more scrutiny than the actions of lone individuals defending themselves from mobs, for obvious reasons.

So, the moral is, everyone should arm themself to the hilt. Because anyone armed with a gun simply has to proclaim that their fear is "that my gun will be taken from me" and that is enough to justify homicide of any unarmed person in your immediate vicinity, doesn't matter how they get there.
Click to expand...

The moral is, don't attack people unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences, even if you have a large mob purportedly backing you. BLM and ANTIFA are attempting to incite a violent Marxist revolution in this country, and more and more people are waking up to that fact, despite being falsely accused as racists. Good luck banning guns at this point, because that will be when the counter-revolution starts.
 
stanfr said:
The real tragedy of our self-defense laws, which this verdict illustrates, is that guns are so revered that our laws codify the ensuing bloodbath.
Click to expand...
And the real scandal of this trial was not that Rittenhouse did something illegal and got away with it. The real scandal is that what Rittenhouse did might well have been legal, which is why he got away with it.

As a wise man once said:
Michael Kinsley said:
“I have a saying: the scandal isn’t what’s illegal, the scandal is what’s legal.”
Click to expand...
 
Tippit said:
The moral is, don't attack people unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences, even if you have a large mob purportedly backing you. BLM and ANTIFA are attempting to incite a violent Marxist revolution in this country, and more and more people are waking up to that fact, despite being falsely accused as racists. Good luck banning guns at this point, because that will be when the counter-revolution starts.
Click to expand...

You characterize it as an attack. I doubt the deceased would characterize it as such, and we know the injured did not. That is the problem with the law as it stands, so long as you find that Rittenhouse subjectively felt he was being "attacked"--and not only attacked but in danger of great bodily harm or death-- then he is justified in killing anyone whom he perceives that way. Never mind that the more likely scenario is that they were simply trying to stop a killer on the run.

I do agree with you that it was quite foolish for any of the victims to approach someone with an AR-15, I certainly would not have. But that's irrelevant. And your Marxist revolution nonsense is just that. Some of us actually see a problem with systemic racism, which is what led to the protests in the first place.
 
stanfr:"And your Marxist revolution nonsense is just that."

Yet, they are saying this is their aim. Do you not believe their own statements?
They are wearing REVOLUTION t-shirts on the steps of the Kenosha courthouse.
What does that word mean, except "revolution" ?

Meanwhile, riots in Portland.
https://wamu.org/story/21/11/20/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-prompts-protests-in-several-cities
The Party of Socialism and Liberation was the organizer of Friday’s demonstration in Chicago, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Oh yeah, these folks are not Marxist Revolutionary cadres. Yup, that's 'nonsense' ---

Never mind that the more likely scenario is that they were simply trying to stop a killer on the run.

Who among them witnessed the shooting of Rosenbaum? That is the only legal way they could interfere with Kyle Rittenhouse on Sheridan Road, if they had seen him commit a felony. (As the Jury has already noted, there was no felony committed.)
It could be argued that Maurice Freeland did see the shooting back at CarSource, but he never testified to that, because he refused to get involved with the trial at all.
He's lucky to be alive, BTW.
 
Bob001: Here's a question: If Grosskreutz had gotten off a well-aimed shot as Rittenhouse raised his AR15 at him and dropped him where he stood, would you agree Grosskreutz was entitled to claim self-defense? Or does it only work in one direction?

I believe that Grosskreutz would not have even been located by the Police.
Kyle would be dead in the street (not dropped 'where he stood' because he was SEATED) and videos of the incident would have mysteriously vanished.
The case could have turned into a "who dunnit" and maybe never brought into a courtroom for lack of evidence.
 
PORTLAND: Reuters video recently released of Police being threatened, and cornered back into their station garage as they retreat, while mob chants and challenges them with cries of "Whazzup, Whazzup!" and the Police stand down.
https://www.townsvillebulletin.com....garage/video/f05154ed0b85c1a4305c4e447ed44c26
In the streets, a popular chant is arising -- "Burn Every City and Every Town To The Ground" and offically, a riot is declared by law-enforcement authorities.
 
webfusion said:
Bob001: Here's a question: If Grosskreutz had gotten off a well-aimed shot as Rittenhouse raised his AR15 at him and dropped him where he stood, would you agree Grosskreutz was entitled to claim self-defense? Or does it only work in one direction?

I believe that Grosskreutz would not have even been located by the Police.
Kyle would be dead in the street (not dropped 'where he stood' because he was SEATED) and videos of the incident would have mysteriously vanished.
The case could have turned into a "who dunnit" and maybe never brought into a courtroom for lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

The fact you have citizens in these situations with assault rifles and pistols is insane. That is the big picture where in all these scenarios, hypothetical or otherwise, become the subject of debate.
 
stanfr said:
You characterize it as an attack. I doubt the deceased would characterize it as such, and we know the injured did not. That is the problem with the law as it stands, so long as you find that Rittenhouse subjectively felt he was being "attacked"--and not only attacked but in danger of great bodily harm or death-- then he is justified in killing anyone whom he perceives that way. Never mind that the more likely scenario is that they were simply trying to stop a killer on the run.

I do agree with you that it was quite foolish for any of the victims to approach someone with an AR-15, I certainly would not have. But that's irrelevant. And your Marxist revolution nonsense is just that. Some of us actually see a problem with systemic racism, which is what led to the protests in the first place.
Click to expand...

He was threatened, stalked, and charged by Rosenbaum, he was hit over the head with a skateboard by Huber, and he was drawn upon by GrossKreutz, all while being followed and generally surrounded by a large violent mob. I would argue that whether you're the member of a mob, or even a "mostly peaceful protest", you have an even higher standard than others to not provoke violent situations with people not in your ingroup, since it will almost always (this case was the exception, as opposed to the other 25 victims of BLM/ANTIFA mob murders) result in bodily harm to the outgroup. Clearly Rosenbaum violated that standard, and it probably resulted in the death of Huber and the maiming of Grosskreutz.
 
Sideroxylon said:
The fact you have citizens in these situations with assault rifles and pistols is insane. That is the big picture where in all these scenarios, hypothetical or otherwise, become the subject of debate.
Click to expand...

We have rifles and pistols in order to serve as a final check on a tyrannical government (including corrupt, murderous police, BTW) which seems to be becoming more and more likely. We understand the history and the costs of democide, and we weigh those against the costs of some immoral people using weapons to commit crimes. The 2nd amendment is not even close to insane.

Insane is Mao Tse Tung murdering 60,000,000 of his own people in the Great Leap Forward".
 
Tippit said:
He was threatened, stalked, and charged by Rosenbaum, he was hit over the head with a skateboard by Huber, and he was drawn upon by GrossKreutz, all while being followed and generally surrounded by a large violent mob. I would argue that whether you're the member of a mob, or even a "mostly peaceful protest", you have an even higher standard than others to not provoke violent situations with people not in your ingroup, since it will almost always (this case was the exception, as opposed to the other 25 victims of BLM/ANTIFA mob murders) result in bodily harm to the outgroup. Clearly Rosenbaum violated that standard, and it probably resulted in the death of Huber and the maiming of Grosskreutz.
Click to expand...

Head to a white supremacist rally with an assault rifle and BLM shirt and take out some bigots as they come at you. Instant hero and good times.
 
Tippit said:
We have rifles and pistols in order to serve as a final check on a tyrannical government (including corrupt, murderous police, BTW) which seems to be becoming more and more likely. We understand the history and the costs of democide, and we weigh those against the costs of some immoral people using weapons to commit crimes. The 2nd amendment is not even close to insane.

Insane is Mao Tse Tung murdering 60,000,000 of his own people in the Great Leap Forward".
Click to expand...

Not to mention the billionaire elites and corporations stealing democracy and ******* over the proletariat. If we unite and arm ourselves we can rise up and take back the country and worker dignity!

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
 
Last edited:
Tippit said:
*snip* ...this case was the exception, (as opposed to the other 25 victims of BLM/ANTIFA mob murders) that resulted in bodily harm to the outgroup.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you repeated that claim twice in this thread, it made me curious about the source so I went seeking information...

That set of numbers came from a study by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), a nonprofit data collection, analysis and crisis mapping project.

The statistic "25" seems to be derived from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) who offered on March 13th, 2021, this comment: "Out of 7,750 protests last summer associated with BLM and Antifa, 570 turned into violent riots that killed 25 people and caused $1- $2 billion of property damage."

Johnson’s biggest problem is that he assumes that any/all violent action or deaths can be attributed to Black Lives Matter or antifa.

“Ultimately, ACLED recorded more than 10,300 demonstrations associated with the BLM movement in the U.S. during all of last year. It was an overwhelmingly peaceful movement: The vast majority of events — 94 percent — involved no violent or destructive activity.” -- Sam Jones, spokesperson for ACLED.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...on-data-back-his-concern-about-blm-protestors

"The [25] figure includes the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings, for example," he added.
"Also, some demonstrators at BLM rallies died when cars drove through or rammed into the crowds of BLM protesters."

That list of 25 deaths also includes two California law enforcement officers killed by an alleged anti-government "boogaloo" extremist.

In other words, Johnson carelessly suggests the BLM and antifa demonstrations are the cause of 25 deaths, but the list cites numerous examples of deaths linked to far-right actions.

Worth pointing out, I felt.
 
webfusion said:
Read more, watch videos. This thread is over 65 pages long, lots of references. Have at it.

1. The weapon was not automatic rifle.

2. Police & Military had no grounds to stop or question people with long guns (rifles) as it's perfectly legal to do so in Wisconsin.

3. What does having a weapon available for self-defense say about America?

4. It's very difficult to obtain a cheap shotgun these days in the USA. Sold out most everywhere.
Kyle Rittenhouse testified that he attempted to buy a semi-auto shotgun when he went gun shopping, but the store had no stock available to sell.
Also, shotgun shells in very short supply, as is handgun ammo.

5. The Police said "we appreciate you guys" when they came into contact with Kyle's armed group at CarSource #1 at 59th & Sheridan (next to the Gulf gas station, diagonally across from the Ultimate gas station).
Click to expand...

All of this is bolstering Azrael 5's point, that it says something discomforting about America. That anyone would take it all in stride as normal doesn't realize the shades of dystopia projected to the wider world.
 
Tippit said:
He's a hero in general for standing up to a violent angry mob, in the process of burning down a city with no police response.
Click to expand...

Then the obvious route to 'heroism' for Joe Sixpack in the US and A is to grab his pens compensator and trundle halfway across the country to any place where riots are occurring. Wave penis compensator around, blast away, bask in glory.
 
Tippit said:
You don't know that, nor would it be likely that Rittenhouse would have either been alive and also escaped great bodily injury.



I am aware that there are nominal differences between BLM and ANTIFA, but they are both Marxist revolutionary organizations acting under the guise of "racial justice".



Not necessarily. The actions of individuals within large raging mobs are going to be held under more scrutiny than the actions of lone individuals defending themselves from mobs, for obvious reasons.



The moral is, don't attack people unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences, even if you have a large mob purportedly backing you. BLM and ANTIFA are attempting to incite a violent Marxist revolution in this country, and more and more people are waking up to that fact, despite being falsely accused as racists. Good luck banning guns at this point, because that will be when the counter-revolution starts.
Click to expand...

While you froth and fulminate over some 'Marxist revolution' somehow being organized by rioters, don't lose sight of the GOP--arguably in a far better position to effectuate political change--working pretty much out in the open to subvert future elections. That appears to be the more pressing and imminent danger facing democracy. Autocracy, theocracy or Fascism are far more likely near-future outcomes in America than is communism.

Was it Ben Franklin who said the Republic would fall only by internal strife? Well, the strife is here, and it's abuilding. Putin must have to fight against bursting out in uproarious laughter while in polite company, as he sees the fruits of his cheap, oh so cost effective endeavors to install in the WH his dimwitted, useful idiot, by which to accelerate the disintegration of America.

And by the tens of millions, the blind followers of the amazingly still-Useful Idiot are following the program of their nation's demise at the hands of the monied wire-pullers, many of whom are equally blind to their perfidy in pursuit of profit and power.
 
Sideroxylon said:
The fact you have citizens in these situations with assault rifles and pistols is insane. That is the big picture where in all these scenarios, hypothetical or otherwise, become the subject of debate.
Click to expand...

As gun rights supporters focus on the nitty-gritty details of the moment, they lose sight of the bigger picture; that a country awash in guns IS the problem. The only solution for them is an arms race.
 
webfusion said:
stanfr:"And your Marxist revolution nonsense is just that."

Yet, they are saying this is their aim. Do you not believe their own statements?
They are wearing REVOLUTION t-shirts on the steps of the Kenosha courthouse.
What does that word mean, except "revolution" ?
Click to expand...

You forgot the two key words in Tippit's post--"violent" and "BLM"....do you have any proof that "They" were spokesmen for BLM?? Do you realize using the word "They" in an argument in this forum is tantamount to you acknowledging you are a conspiracy theorist? Doesn't sit well with the goal of this forum.

Oh yeah, these folks are not Marxist Revolutionary cadres. Yup, that's 'nonsense' ---
Click to expand...

Most of "these" folks have never read, nevermind understand Marx-Engels...have you??

Never mind that the more likely scenario is that they were simply trying to stop a killer on the run.

Who among them witnessed the shooting of Rosenbaum? That is the only legal way they could interfere with Kyle Rittenhouse on Sheridan Road, if they had seen him commit a felony. (As the Jury has already noted, there was no felony committed.)
It could be argued that Maurice Freeland did see the shooting back at CarSource, but he never testified to that, because he refused to get involved with the trial at all.
He's lucky to be alive, BTW.
Click to expand...

If I never saw the first shooting but just the latter ones of Rittenhopuse running down the street with people shouting "He just shot someone" I think i might have a clue.
 
Last edited:
Lurch said:
As gun rights supporters focus on the nitty-gritty details of the moment, they lose sight of the bigger picture; that a country awash in guns IS the problem. The only solution for them is an arms race.
Click to expand...

Exactly, he who dies with the most guns wins. :boggled:
 
Tippit said:
We have rifles and pistols in order to serve as a final check on a tyrannical government (including corrupt, murderous police, BTW) which seems to be becoming more and more likely. We understand the history and the costs of democide, and we weigh those against the costs of some immoral people using weapons to commit crimes. The 2nd amendment is not even close to insane.

Insane is Mao Tse Tung murdering 60,000,000 of his own people in the Great Leap Forward".
Click to expand...

I would posit that insanity is the populace of an otherwise developed, generally peaceful, kinda prosperous society engaged in an arms race, killing each other in the name of cult-like adherence to a generous interpretation of the now centuries-old scribblings of men.

But as you stated, you're OK with demicide in service to this mantra of 'protection against a tyrannical government.' Are you OK with one of the two political parties currently working to subvert future elections, via laws and installation of partisan actors in key positions where election administration is concerned? Is that the kind of anti-democratic tyranny of disenfranchisement of the citizens' votes you would take up arms against? Or is it only against the left mobs, they being easier targets of the hate to which your consumed media are directing you?
 
Tippit said:
He was threatened, stalked, and charged by Rosenbaum, he was hit over the head with a skateboard by Huber, and he was drawn upon by GrossKreutz, all while being followed and generally surrounded by a large violent mob. I would argue that whether you're the member of a mob, or even a "mostly peaceful protest", you have an even higher standard than others to not provoke violent situations with people not in your ingroup, since it will almost always (this case was the exception, as opposed to the other 25 victims of BLM/ANTIFA mob murders) result in bodily harm to the outgroup. Clearly Rosenbaum violated that standard, and it probably resulted in the death of Huber and the maiming of Grosskreutz.
Click to expand...

Even if you all of your characterizations were true (they are not) that should not justify the use of deadly force. Under the law, that force must be proportionate. Rittenhouse must believe he is going to be killed or at least very badly maimed. Being grazed by a skateboard or having a plastic bag thrown at you ought ot to qualify. The only way he could "reasonably believe" he was in grave danger is if he believed that they were going to take his gun from him and then proceed to execute him after that. You might have an argument that Rosenbaum was capable of that, but certainly not the latter victims. That is the problem with this case, the self defense law as it is, and our gun-worshiping society, it literally gives the more heavily armed individual the right to execute people at whim, because they can always claim "well i was afraid he was gonna take my gun from me...waaaaa"
 
Last edited:
Lurch said:
I would posit that insanity is the populace of an otherwise developed, generally peaceful, kinda prosperous society engaged in an arms race, killing each other in the name of cult-like adherence to a generous interpretation of the now centuries-old scribblings of men.

But as you stated, you're OK with demicide in service to this mantra of 'protection against a tyrannical government.' Are you OK with one of the two political parties currently working to subvert future elections, via laws and installation of partisan actors in key positions where election administration is concerned? Is that the kind of anti-democratic tyranny of disenfranchisement of the citizens' votes you would take up arms against? Or is it only against the left mobs, they being easier targets of the hate to which your consumed media are directing you?
Click to expand...

As an aside, it all makes you wonder--if the trumpists had there way and installed Drumpf as Supreme Leader, and eliminated the threat of brown people or anyone with empathy toward other people--would they still need their guns? I mean, I guess they would, which would mean they could only turn on each other. Which is why I say go ahead, divide the country and give them their wall, let them all die of Covid and petty disputes solved by shootouts.
 
I am not surprised by the verdict, given the law and circumstances. It is the story of 4 idiots in a situation that escalated out of control, 2 ended up dead, one wounded and the last one on trial who got a not guilty verdict because of the idiocy of the two idiots he shot dead and the one he wounded. My sympathy for Kyle is zero. Although Kyle's performance at trial was brilliant. (As a former Lawyer it was obvious to me Kyle had been well rehearsed. His Lawyers would have fools not to do so and they had plenty of time to prepare him.)

An idiot and his gun should be parted.
 
Thermal said:
That's the point. It's illegal for a handgun. By logical extension, it should be illegal for a long gun. I made this argument at the start of the Amaud Arbery thread, too. The law has a woeful oversight in not commenting on a longarm held in a firing position, when if done with a handgun, it is considered brandishing. It is only ' legal' in the loophole sense of not being formally addressed.
Click to expand...

I mean we both agree that the law as written is kinda dodgy. It's just that in judging what happens means we have to use the law as written, not what it should be.

To quote Andrew Branca on this livestream I'm listening to: "Statutes are mostly written by people who are not very intelligent or legislators and they don't write very well. So they often write statutes that are confusing."

Holup; no it doesn't. The rest of that statute says in no uncertain terms that he reasonably believes that the grievous attack is imminent. That's I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T. That is kind of the opposite of the aforementioned if/maybe/might. Might happen...if it happens...maybe it will happen...all mean jack **** in a self defense claim. You have to reasonably believe it is happening, and like now.
Click to expand...

Or "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". Rittenhouse was at the time under attack from Rosenbaum. His decision to take or not take actions is based on what he believes could happen and the jury has to take into account his reasoning. He knows Rosenbaum has grabbed his gun, if he gets disarmed what is likely to happen? Or imminent if you will.

Should he have delayed in defending himself and potentially injured others if the gun goes off in the struggle? Or should he have handed his gun to Rosenbaum so he could then use the gun he just gave away to defend himself?

Answer that one yourself. Have you ever fallen to the ground, perhaps as a reasonably healthy teen? Are you still stuck there, wondering what to do? No?

When you fall, you scramble and get back up. He might take a hit or two. Big ******* deal. The little pussy should have thought about that before strutting around with his rifle and killing mother *******. You willfully go to a riot, you should expect to take some bruises. But Princess Kyle thought nobody should touch him because mommy said he was special. God, I hate this entitled little prick.
Click to expand...

So he's not allowed to defend himself. Got it. I'd have thought there'd be a better reason than "Thermal doesn't like Rittenhouse", but then I dunno.

Talking about the law like it was written by god on stone tablets is a weasel's argument.
Click to expand...

Good thing I didn't make that argument then.

It doesn't make what Kyle did right.
Click to expand...

Defending himself when he's being attacked isn't right?

It doesn't make him 'not guilty'.
Click to expand...

It does though. That's quite literally how the system works.

It only means that the laws, as written, really suck. Claiming a moral victory on the grounds of typos and incoherent writing is pretty lame. I'd actually like a thread dedicated to hashing out how these laws could be rewritten, with some of the warts cleaned up. We did so a bit here, regarding the underage carry statute. That one was a perfect example of why it is disingenuous to rely on the letter of the law, to the point of absurdity.
Click to expand...

Look, I think we all were expecting him to go down for the firearms charge. I know I thought that was the likely option even with how I read the act. What that doesn't do, however, is eliminate his right to defend himself when attacked.
 
Wildy said:
____ *snip*
Quoting Thermal:
It doesn't make him 'not guilty'.

Hilarious reply, great stuff!
"It does though. That's quite literally how the system works."


and then this:
Look, I think we all were expecting him to go down for the firearms charge.
Click to expand...

I didn't. I kept arguing that he was OK to have carried the long gun at 17.
When Judge Schroeder finally dismissed that charge, I literally smiled in satisfaction.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Not to mention the billionaire elites and corporations stealing democracy and ******* over the proletariat. If we unite and arm ourselves we can rise up and take back the country and worker dignity!
Click to expand...

I would argue that it's the trillionaires who compose the New World Order who are the real problem, not your average billionaire, and I'm not interested in your communist revolution. Capitalism isn't the problem. Our corrupt money and banking system that supplies the corporations you speak of with unlimited credit is the problem.

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment doesn't exist to enable a communist revolution, it exists to prevent one. Workers are exploited by our corrupt monetary system and how it subsidizes asset owners at the expense of workers, not capitalism.

Capitalism is about profit and loss. But thanks to the Federal Reserve System, the banks and corporations can never lose.
 
webfusion said:
In other words, Johnson carelessly suggests the BLM and antifa demonstrations are the cause of 25 deaths, but the list cites numerous examples of deaths linked to far-right actions.

Worth pointing out, I felt.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I don't know how that figure breaks down by politics.
 
Lurch said:
Then the obvious route to 'heroism' for Joe Sixpack in the US and A is to grab his pens compensator and trundle halfway across the country to any place where riots are occurring. Wave penis compensator around, blast away, bask in glory.
Click to expand...

How much of that do you think is actually happening, as opposed to the Soros-funded BLM and ANTIFA hopping on busses, trains and planes, to riot halfway across the country and throw pre-dropped bricks through windows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom