Jump to content

Crocodile Tears From Rittenhouse!


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/13/2021 at 6:52 AM, widenthemoat said:

Sorry - I can't seem to edit my post, but to add why he was there - there was a car dealership that asked his friends to protect the lot. The owner testified under oath that is not true, but quite frankly if you take the time to watch the testimony in full it is clear he is lying to avoid being sued. Everyone else under oath testified they were asked to be there. They also were given a key by the owner which is how they were able to get in/out of the building all night. There is also a picture of one of the owners smiling with Rittenhouse and the others right before the night starts with all of their guns out at the lot.

Now you can't say that Rittenhouse's tears were real and the owner of the car lot was lying.  All of it was testimony under oath.  The owner says he didn't ask Rittenhouse to protect the family car lot, and his text conversations showed that Rittenhouse offered such services, but the owner did not respond or accept.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

22 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Whats unfortunate is the media influence here and how like many other things, the narrative really determines everything. I remember debating with people during COVID about how one should approach things. And I consistently was told that my approach was selfish and that only caring about myself and friends/family was inconsiderate. Yet, consistently we've seen the same bleeding hearts shit on others without a thought. Send inflation packages that effect the poor straight to their front door simply because they couldn't stand Trumps personality. Even double down on things that clearly only had selfish motives. Here....look at this. Would I ever do what Kyle Rittenhouse did? Absolutely fuckin not. I'd most likely pack up my shit and take my family to a resort somewhere hours away or go on a road trip with my family. In my most patriotic and local pride moment maybe I'd send my family away and stay back, in my own house, with my guns. Am I a coward, IDK, dont care. Am I just smart? IDK. dont care. Selfish or selfless? Dont know, dont care. You can say Kyle was looking for trouble...maybe thats true. You can also say that maybe he had some sense of loyalty to the neighborhood. Maybe he was unduly influenced by friends and family and his sense of needing to do something was derived from that. Again, who knows. But its all going to come down to the narrative and perspective. And again, like with being a submissive little bitch to your local politicians during covid, I ask...whats the risk/reward and whats the alternative and why do what you do? The reasons may make sense to some, but to others they dont, and ultimately your fate may rest in the hands of someone with a different perspective. 

 

That said, I'm glad the loser 36 year old mouthing off and threatening to kill a teenager ended up reaping what he sowed. Did he not have a job or something? I would bet not, or at least not a good one. 

I don't disagree with you.  The three guys rioting and protesting got what they deserved.  But that doesn't make homicide a defensible offense...especially shooting one guy multiple times, at 17 years old, with a firearm you don't own, in a neighborhood that isn't yours. 

If Rittenhouse wanted to make a difference, he could have joined the Peace Corp, Army Reserves, enlisted, become a police officer, fireman or paramedic.  He chose none of those and brought a semi-automatic weapon to a riot/protest...essentially a gas can to a fire!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Parsad said:

Hi Widen,

I don't disagree with you on any of the points.  I certainly don't think Rittenhouse deserves a life sentence.  That being said, I think he deserves some sort of sentence...he killed two people and injured a third. 

Fearful or not, he was in a location where riots were taking place and he was carrying a semi-automatic rifle...at 17 years old.  Stupidity deserves some sort of punishment if it got 2 people killed.  What if the same thing happened in a school or workplace?  Would the two offenders, regardless of age and aggression, deserve to be shot and killed?

Rittenhouse should go to prison.  I'll leave the sentence (if they find him guilty) to the courts.  But there is no rational way of explaining all of his behavior away as self-defense or even justified homicide.  Cheers!

Ass-backwards logic right here ^

It’s not illegal to carry a rifle. And he didn’t transport it across state lines. 
 

He was defending from RIOTERS (You say it like they have a right to riot and destroy private property) tf? 

He shot and killed a convicted felon (who had a gun. Where are the gun law nuts at?) A convicted rapist and a domestic abuser (who was basically in the act!) 
 

He was attacked and told he was going to be killed by one of them and attacked by the other two. The guy who had the gun said Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him u till “he drew his pistol on him” 

17 is too young (maybe legally), but you’re good with sending our boys over seas at 18? Give me a break. 
 

Was it a stupid decision to go there? Yes probably. 
 

If the “Rooftop Koreans” killed anyone during the LA riots would you also be calling for their prosecution? 
 

This is why I have zero faith in the country anymore. Here we’re have seemingly intelligent individuals demonizing someone who stood up to rioters (who were rioting in favor of a child rapist) and also subsequently defending THREE individuals with lengthy rap sheets. Then you bash the kid of crying on the stand saying it was fake? Kid has PTSD. Your arguments address emotions and not evidence or how the laws work. 
 

Two complete pieces of shit are dead and another injured. Who gives a shit. 

2020 “The Year Society Chose  Barbara’s Again”

Society is hyper focused on this case (which is clear cut imo) when they should be focused on the case regarding Ahmad Aubrey (and the pos that killed him) and the case with the three girls who stole that u we drivers car and ran him into a street pole killing him. 
 

I mean really? Everyone is up in arms about three absolute pos getting shot? The prosecution argued that if Rittenhouse wasn’t there nothing bad would have happened (define bad please…). Yet I would argue, nothing bad would have happened if society had its head screwed on straight and the media wasn’t so full of shit that it got people to riot over a child rapist being shot… 

Guess it’s up to the jury! Seeing the number of intelligent people defending  him makes shudder tat the thought of ever being on the stand. 
 

https://twitter.com/billackman/status/1458917414800875520?s=21

Here is Bill Ackmans take on it. And at the end of the thread he got calls from media asking how he could possible defend him?! Sad 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I cant really get to the bottom of it, and have better things to do with my time than try to, but its so strange and bizarre and likely the result of some sort of coordinated, big dollar campaign, but yea....the real case that should be everyones focus is Ahmad Aubrey. This one is a joke. A bunch of scumbag pussies, including a child rapist got killed. Who cares? Ahmad was shot for doing something Ive probably done a bunch of times...checking out an unfinished construction job LOL. By a bunch of rednecks. But yea, worry about a few white pedos who were setting fires and trying to kill minors....WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Yea I cant really get to the bottom of it, and have better things to do with my time than try to, but its so strange and bizarre and likely the result of some sort of coordinated, big dollar campaign, but yea....the real case that should be everyones focus is Ahmad Aubrey. This one is a joke. A bunch of scumbag pussies, including a child rapist got killed. Who cares? Ahmad was shot for doing something Ive probably done a bunch of times...checking out an unfinished construction job LOL. By a bunch of rednecks. But yea, worry about a few white pedos who were setting fires and trying to kill minors....WTF?

One case has nothing to do with the other.  Too much time spent on this case?  Probably.

47 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Ass-backwards logic right here ^

It’s not illegal to carry a rifle. And he didn’t transport it across state lines. 
 

He was defending from RIOTERS (You say it like they have a right to riot and destroy private property) tf? 

He shot and killed a convicted felon (who had a gun. Where are the gun law nuts at?) A convicted rapist and a domestic abuser (who was basically in the act!) 
 

He was attacked and told he was going to be killed by one of them and attacked by the other two. The guy who had the gun said Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him u till “he drew his pistol on him” 

17 is too young (maybe legally), but you’re good with sending our boys over seas at 18? Give me a break. 
 

Was it a stupid decision to go there? Yes probably. 
 

If the “Rooftop Koreans” killed anyone during the LA riots would you also be calling for their prosecution? 
 

This is why I have zero faith in the country anymore. Here we’re have seemingly intelligent individuals demonizing someone who stood up to rioters (who were rioting in favor of a child rapist) and also subsequently defending THREE individuals with lengthy rap sheets. Then you bash the kid of crying on the stand saying it was fake? Kid has PTSD. Your arguments address emotions and not evidence or how the laws work. 
 

Two complete pieces of shit are dead and another injured. Who gives a shit. 

2020 “The Year Society Chose  Barbara’s Again”

Society is hyper focused on this case (which is clear cut imo) when they should be focused on the case regarding Ahmad Aubrey (and the pos that killed him) and the case with the three girls who stole that u we drivers car and ran him into a street pole killing him. 
 

I mean really? Everyone is up in arms about three absolute pos getting shot? The prosecution argued that if Rittenhouse wasn’t there nothing bad would have happened (define bad please…). Yet I would argue, nothing bad would have happened if society had its head screwed on straight and the media wasn’t so full of shit that it got people to riot over a child rapist being shot… 

Guess it’s up to the jury! Seeing the number of intelligent people defending  him makes shudder tat the thought of ever being on the stand. 
 

https://twitter.com/billackman/status/1458917414800875520?s=21

Here is Bill Ackmans take on it. And at the end of the thread he got calls from media asking how he could possible defend him?! Sad 

 

 

I didn't say that the guys who got shot didn't deserve it.  But that doesn't make what Rittenhouse did defensible.  Two are dead and one was shot...not much more punishment they could get for rioting.

You're the one who is emboldening emotion and not the law.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Parsad said:

One case has nothing to do with the other.  Too much time spent on this case?  Probably.

I didn't say that the guys who got shot didn't deserve it.  But that doesn't make what Rittenhouse did defensible.  Two are dead and one was shot...not much more punishment they could get for rioting.

You're the one who is emboldening emotion and not the law.  Cheers!

You said he should be charged because he was stupid. Being stupid is not against the law. Being stupid does not revoke your right to self defense. Being somewhere other than your home does not revoke your right to self defense. The prosecution argues provocation from Rittenhouse. Provocation would be the riots imo. Rittenhouse, like half the country was sick of seeing billions of dollars of private property destroyed. Members of Congress said “riot in the streets” they chose to turn their backs on the police and demonize anyone who stood for law and order. Until society gets back on track and stops turning an eye to the u unlawfulness going on, there will likely be more “vigilantes” popping up. If he’s found guilty by the jury it could end up being worse. Keep defending the police, removing laws (shoplifting etc.) and embracing bad actors and this will most definitely continue to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Are you asserting that he was acting under a motivation to deliver vigilante justice?

No, I think he went there to protect property and to try and prevent individuals from causing harm and destruction. The evidence overwhelmingly shows this as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Castanza said:

No, I think he went there to protect property and to try and prevent individuals from causing harm and destruction. The evidence overwhelmingly shows this as well. 

Protecting the property of others is not a lawful purpose for him to bring the firearm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking for a bit that I wouldn't mind if he were acquitted because he isn't a bloodthirsty murderer.  I feel as though he killed them in a panic.

But the other half of me sees him as an irresponsible dumbass who needs to learn a lesson here for acting foolishly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Protecting the property of others is not a lawful purpose for him to bring the firearm.

 

It’s not unlawful to have a rifle in public in Wisconsin. The judge threw out those charges today because the statute was for short barreled rifles (which an AR-15) is not. That charge would have been a class A misdemeanor and regardless that does not waive one’s right to self defense. It’s a known fact (albeit unknown to Rittenhouse at the time) that a felon possessed a concealed handgun at the riots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Castanza said:

It’s not unlawful to have a rifle in public in Wisconsin. 

That's not related.

... you were saying "I think he went there to protect property".

And I was saying...

... "Protecting the property of others is not a lawful purpose for him to bring the firearm."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

So the question remains... what was the gun for?

It was to deter, as they said on the stand. That's exactly what a firearm is for and should be for 98% of the time. 

 

What was the one section to not get looted during the LA Riots? 

https://koryogroup.com/blog/who-were-the-rooftop-koreans

 

As I said, I think Rittenhouse was foolish for going (and look at the mess he has to deal with). But I have no problem with defending property with a firearm if it's your own. Ultimately though, the police cannot protect everyone and everything when riots break out. They didn't prevent a whole host of things that night leading up to that event. I think most red blooded Americans would stand behind Rittenhouse's intentions while also recognizing the foolishness of his actions. The property of that car dealership apparently didn't want to protect their own property. 

However, as I said above although foolish and presumably illegal at first thought (now thrown out). What exactly do you charge him with? The state has to prove without a doubt that he had intentions of doing harm that night. I think his actions leading up to the incidents and actions after show otherwise. And you have to argue that he loses the right to self defense of his person. Excessive force? possible on one guy (multiple threats were made), but the other individual Grosswhatever said on the stand "Kyle did not shoot until I drew my pistol."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Bullshit.  It was loaded.

And? You don't think he thought he might have to protect himself? You can still bring a loaded gun and use it to deter. After all, there was a convicted felon who had a loaded handgun in the area. So it's not unreasonable to think he could have thought he might have needed to defend himself (regardless of how dumb it was to put himself in that situation). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is akin to the dumbasses who tried to overthrow democracy on January 6th and can't believe they are charged for it because they meant well in their hearts that they were in fact saving democracy.

 

 

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Well according to the judge that charge was dropped... and the law/statute is for short barreled rifles and likely handguns

It allows for minors to have guns with barrels 16 inches or longer.  For hunting (in theory).

They'll need to change that law or you're going to theoretically have 6 yr olds out there legally carrying.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...