Ferguson, MO

[tinselwolverine]

wait I'm confused. if he's bad at building sympathy for the kid, don't you mean defense attorney, not prosecutor?

You?ve been posting over the top stuff on this as much as anyone.

EDIT: If you were the prosecutor, I?d want to hand the kid the Key to Kenosha and throw the kid a parade.

 

[Michchamp]

You?ve been posting over the top stuff on this as much as anyone.

well, the part about killing Rittenhouse was admittedly over the top. I don't think any of the rest of what I posted on this is.

We as a society should not be using deadly force to defend property, except for the limited instance of being able to defend one's own home, nor should we encourage violence like this, which by letting Rittenhouse walk scott free, does.

Rittenhouse wasn't even defending anything that was his - or his family's.

and according to all the accounts I read, wasn't even at the car lot anymore - his whole reason for traveling to Kenosha - when the shootings started. The cops or the lot owner told them to get lost. probably because their presence there attracted protestors, rather than deterred them... since it was obvious they weren't cops and were just looking for trouble.

This whole thing sets a terrible precedent, and we can bank on future protests getting bloodier. The crazies want to go back to the wild west... as long as they get the guns and no one else does... and still think despite what happened on 1/6, it will always work out like that.

I still don't understand your comment about him being the prosecutor tho.

 

[tomdalton22]

well, the part about killing Rittenhouse was admittedly over the top. I don't think any of the rest of what I posted on this is.

We as a society should not be using deadly force to defend property, except for the limited instance of being able to defend one's own home, nor should we encourage violence like this, which by letting Rittenhouse walk scott free, does.

wasn't Rittenhouse defending himself, not property, when he used deadly force?

 

[Michchamp]

In LA Korean shop owners famously stood on their buildings to defend their shops and businesses from being looted or torched.

Ideally... you just pay insurance for that sort of thing. That would be prudent, no? And if your plan is kill anyone who threatens your business... MAYBE you're not the kind of person who should own a business in an area with persistent poverty, where people steal out of necessity?

But even then, I can concede, hey, the business owners have a right to be on their property, and if rioters are breaking in and threatening them, they should be armed. and obviously they can use deadly force if threatened. it's all bad, but the world is not a nice place, and defending your own business from the premises isn't starting a slippery slope where we encourage people to come armed to protests and start shooting their political opponents if someone lights a dumpster on fire or throws a brick through a window

Rittenhouse's and the facebook chodes' that invited vigilantes to Kenosha are SO FAR from that analogy of Korean
Shop owners, their actions are completely unjustifiable here.

 

[Michchamp]

wasn't Rittenhouse defending himself, not property, when he used deadly force?

but if you KNOWINGLY put yourself in a hostile situation, that stands the idea of "self defense" on its head. Plus you had a duty to retreat if you could. We used to not incentivize or encourage people to pull out guns and shoot eachother.

do I need to dig up some links on why, or can you guys figure that last part out on your own?

this "stand your ground" bullshit is a return to barbarism.

you didn't have a right to use deadly force to defend property. and Rittenhouse was not even defending his own property here.

this is all so far off base...

 

[tinselwolverine]

well, the part about killing Rittenhouse was admittedly over the top. I don't think any of the rest of what I posted on this is.

We as a society should not be using deadly force to defend property, except for the limited instance of being able to defend one's own home, nor should we encourage violence like this, which by letting Rittenhouse walk scott free, does.



I still don't understand your comment about him being the prosecutor tho.

You will understand one day, Grasshopper.

If you?ve been reading all the posts you?ve noticed that not everyone who thinks that Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt wants Rittenhouse to walk scott free. I?ve posted that I don?t want Rittenhouse to walk scott free - he shouldn?t have been there. None of the people he shot should have been there. Once the curfew and the order to disperse was issued, no one but the police should have been there.

If the stupid bitch at the Capitol had listened to the police, she wouldn?t be dead.

Listen to the police.

EDIT: I looked it up - he is also charged with two counts of recklessly endangering safety and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 - so there?s that if jurors don?t think he?s guilty of murder but also think he shouldn?t walk scott free.

 

[Michchamp]

You will understand one day, Grasshopper.

If you?ve been reading all the posts you?ve noticed that not everyone who thinks that Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt wants Rittenhouse to walk scott free. I?ve posted that I don?t want Rittenhouse to walk scott free - he shouldn?t have been there. None of the people he shot should have been there. Once the curfew and the order to disperse was issued, no one but the police should have been there.

If the stupid bitch at the Capitol had listened to the police, she wouldn?t be dead.

Listen to the police.

unless the cops are handing you bottled water and pats on the back for doing a great job shooting people the cops don't like, right?

 

[tinselwolverine]

unless the cops are handing you bottled water and pats on the back for doing a great job shooting people the cops don't like, right?

I don?t get this.

EDIT: OK. The messaging from police here seems inconsistent.

 

[tinselwolverine]

From the AP.

 

[tomdalton22]

but if you KNOWINGLY put yourself in a hostile situation, that stands the idea of "self defense" on its head. Plus you had a duty to retreat if you could. We used to not incentivize or encourage people to pull out guns and shoot eachother.

do I need to dig up some links on why, or can you guys figure that last part out on your own?

this "stand your ground" bullshit is a return to barbarism.

you didn't have a right to use deadly force to defend property. and Rittenhouse was not even defending his own property here.

this is all so far off base...

here's what I don't understand...how on earth is someone allowed to carry an assault rifle to a riot?

 

[Spartanmack]

?Attends riot?with the best of intentions??

Now?that is a string of words you don?t come across every day.

EDIT: It?s ironic; when I started watching the trial on television yesterday I had so much more empathy for the kid than I have now, after reading your defense for him here on this forum?if the people of Kenosha wanted a conviction in this case?they should have hired YOU to be the prosecutor?

I bet that happens regularly. Maybe you've been listening to MC for too long but I bet every cop, paramedic and other first responders hope they don't have to engage violent mobs. I haven't seen anything to indicated Rittenhouse had any evil intentions - the evidence clearly backs that up.

It's mostly just the rioters who attend riots with ill intent. I'm not so sure what controversial about what I've said about Rittenhouse - it's all documented fact backed up by video and eyewitness testimony. The whole thing is a sham, brought on by an overzealous prosecutor with a political axe to grind who charged Rittenhouse without having seen most of the evidence, the carried through with the case even after he did. No one should be surprised if he got his ass handed to him in court.

 

[Spartanmack]

well, the part about killing Rittenhouse was admittedly over the top. I don't think any of the rest of what I posted on this is.

nazi, hitler youth, all the stuff about bloodlust, and comparing it to opposition to abortion - not over the top. Interesting.

We as a society should not be using deadly force to defend property, except for the limited instance of being able to defend one's own home, nor should we encourage violence like this, which by letting Rittenhouse walk scott free, does.

Rittenhouse wasn't even defending anything that was his - or his family's.

Rittenhouse didn't use deadly force to defend property - he used deadly force to defend his life, which contrary to your worldview, does in fact belong to him and him alone.

and according to all the accounts I read, wasn't even at the car lot anymore - his whole reason for traveling to Kenosha - when the shootings started. The cops or the lot owner told them to get lost. probably because their presence there attracted protestors, rather than deterred them... since it was obvious they weren't cops and were just looking for trouble.

That's because he was chased, cornered and fired upon by the two assailants

This whole thing sets a terrible precedent, and we can bank on future protests getting bloodier. The crazies want to go back to the wild west... as long as they get the guns and no one else does... and still think despite what happened on 1/6, it will always work out like that.

I still don't understand your comment about him being the prosecutor tho.

You've been trying to assert this claim for years and the only escalation we're seeing is on the side of the rioters. I'll take the other side on this one too.

 

[Spartanmack]

but if you KNOWINGLY put yourself in a hostile situation, that stands the idea of "self defense" on its head. Plus you had a duty to retreat if you could. We used to not incentivize or encourage people to pull out guns and shoot eachother.

do I need to dig up some links on why, or can you guys figure that last part out on your own?

this "stand your ground" bullshit is a return to barbarism.

you didn't have a right to use deadly force to defend property. and Rittenhouse was not even defending his own property here.

this is all so far off base...

he did retreat, twice and both times he was chased down and assaulted. And again, he didn't use deadly force to defend property unless you consider attempting to put out fires to be deadly force. The only thing off base is your take on all of it to once again defend violent offenders and vilify law abiding citizens or cops whichever the case may be.

 

[Michchamp]

here's what I don't understand...how on earth is someone allowed to carry an assault rifle to a riot?

We need a national moment of reflection or something.

everybody needs to log off, tune out the noise, pause youtube, stop listening to crazies ranting about a coming civil war, or defending the constitution and decide if we really want to live in a society where people have to carry guns in public, because the "other guy" might be, and you never know if someone you just cut off in traffic, or who can't control their temper, or who is batshit insane, or who mixed their anti-depressants with booze and is unhinged ... etc etc might snap and start shooting at you or your family.

 

[byco42]

We need a national moment of reflection or something.

everybody needs to log off, tune out the noise, pause youtube, stop listening to crazies ranting about a coming civil war, or defending the constitution and decide if we really want to live in a society where people have to carry guns in public, because the "other guy" might be, and you never know if someone you just cut off in traffic, or who can't control their temper, or who is batshit insane, or who mixed their anti-depressants with booze and is unhinged ... etc etc might snap and start shooting at you or your family.

Let?s add to that orchestrating vandalism and flying ?rioters? ?across state lines? to insight violence and destroy public property. Let?s decide if that?s acceptable, too.

 

[Michchamp]

Let?s add to that orchestrating vandalism and flying ?rioters? ?across state lines? to insight violence and destroy public property. Let?s decide if that?s acceptable, too.

yes, because that's comparable in harm to the tens of thousands of Americans killed by gunshot every year... just brilliant.

 

[byco42]

yes, because that's comparable in harm to the tens of thousands of Americans killed by gunshot every year... just brilliant.

I said ?let?s add? ya ?nitz. You can?t change every conversation that challenges your assertions. Or, you can, but it?s counter-productive.

 

[zyxt9]

Wait, so it is not acceptable to consider the histories of the individuals who were killed? Their history explains how and why they attended the riot in the first place. They obviously suffered from mental conditions that inhibited their ability to accurately assess proper action. If they were not mentally unstable, they would not have been persuaded to go to Kenosha in the first place. At that point, the fire does not get started. But let us go another step further, let us go with the idea that they were mentally sound. When seeing the kid trying to put out the fire, does a mentally sound person see that and go after the kid to stop putting out the fire? Does he get assistance from someone who has a gun to chase the kid and threaten him, especially when the kid has a clearly visible AR???

Snopes is dead wrong with their statement that a review of the history of the deceased has no relevance. It is that history that explains why they were there, started the fire, and chased the kid. Without their mental dysfunction, there is a very good chance that they have the mental capacity to disperse when the police gave the order, but even if not, no sane person would chase after someone for trying to put out a fire...especially when that person is carrying an assault rifle!

Furthermore, businesses ask people to defend their properties all the time, often with weapons as necessary. If a Security Officer, or even a Bouncer, is working and they see someone attempting to commit arson at a nearby business, they have the right to attempt to put out that fire. If the arsonist threatens them and they run away from the arsonist, but the arsonist chases after them with another individual who has a gun, corners them, threatens them, does that Security Officer or Bouncer not have the right to defend themselves by discharging their own weapon? Then, upon attempting to administer first aid to the person they shot, more people begin to chase them, and as they are running away one of the chasers catches up to them and assaults them, does that person not have the right to once again use their firearm to protect themselves?

I get this Prosecutor is in a tough spot as not getting a conviction will likely lead to more riots, but this should never have gone to trial. Not that any of the video evidence matters to the Liberal mobs. They will undoubtedly return to Kenosha to finish what they started if the kid is not convicted. Maybe Champ will even join them this time.

 

[zyxt9]

Let?s add to that orchestrating vandalism and flying ?rioters? ?across state lines? to insight violence and destroy public property. Let?s decide if that?s acceptable, too.

Well when Conservatives do these things, the govt sicks the FBI on them and prosecutes to the fullest. Liberals though get a pass whenever they attack, vandalize, attempt to murder, and attempt arson against govt property and employees.

They all deserve being prosecuted... but it sure seems completely one-sided these days.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Let?s add to that orchestrating vandalism and flying ?rioters? ?across state lines? to insight violence and destroy public property. Let?s decide if that?s acceptable, too.

Generally rioters are bussed across state lines.

If rioters are really motivated, like the little chick from San Diego who was executed by the Capitol police for at worst the violation of trespassing on Jan 6, if they can afford it they can pay their own freight.

A lot of those January 6 rioters flew themselves across state lines it seems to the Capitol.

Do I understand correctly that Rittenhouse?s mother drove her teenage son across state lines to Kenosha to participate in the riot?

We don?t know yet if he was a rioter, a murderer, or a heroic freedom fighter.

I guess the history books will one day tell the story.

I just hope they don?t fuck it up like critical race theory.