Jump to content

Crocodile Tears From Rittenhouse!


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ERICOPOLY said:

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.

It's not for hunting and the judge went into detail regarding that statute. Also the majority of states have this same law. Here in Pennsylvania a kid of at least age 16 could technically have a long barreled rifle and walk down a street. You'll be sure to get stopped by police if you try, but you're within your rights. This law has never been a problem. It likely stems from the days when firearms were common place in high school pickup trucks. Perhaps it needs revisited? Idk I think crazies will do as crazies will do. There is a lot more mental illness today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

These laws are so antiquated.

 

 

The laws are not antiquated. They worked just fine for probably 100 years or more. The problem is people and society have degraded and mental illness is at all time highs. Society needs to get its ass in gear and actually address the issue instead of putting Band-Aids on things. More laws don't fix things. We have enough laws as it is. It drives me nuts that everyone is in such a hurry to create and pass more laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Interesting case though... the only person shooting people at BLM rallies is the guy who showed up to be a hero and stop the violence.

 

It wasn't a rally, it was a riot which is illegal

Just now, ERICOPOLY said:

Maybe it's provocative to show up with a gun like that slung across your back?

Why did he show up? Perhaps the riots and looting provoked him? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Castanza said:

The laws are not antiquated. They worked just fine for probably 100 years or more. 

Nobody feels threatened by what they see every day.  You said they were commonplace (guns in public) a long time ago.

Not anymore -- open carry these days and you terrify everyone.  Too many mass shootings.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Castanza said:

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."  

It's a massive difference between protecting a friend's car lot without them asking and protecting one's own property.  I would call it self-defense in the latter, but certainly not in the former case.  

A black guy sitting in his own car in a public space gets shot multiple times because he resists arrest and dies.  A white kid who knowingly goes into a riot zone, with a semi-automatic rifle (that doesn't belong to him) to protect property that doesn't belong to him, and kills two people...but he gets off on self-defense?  Talk about the law and justice!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Parsad said:

It's a massive difference between protecting a friend's car lot without them asking and protecting one's own property.  I would call it self-defense in the latter, but certainly not in the former case.  

A black guy sitting in his own car in a public space gets shot multiple times because he resists arrest and dies.  A white kid who knowingly goes into a riot zone, with a semi-automatic rifle (that doesn't belong to him) to protect property that doesn't belong to him, and kills two people...but he gets off on self-defense?  Talk about the law and justice!  Cheers!

Did he show up to shoot people? If so then why did he do all those other things? Why not just get straight to the shooting. I'm not sure you even listened to a minute of the trials or the evidence provided.  Again, riots are unlawful, there were plenty of armed rioters there including the felon who had a gun and said to Rittenhouse "fuck you" , charged him and tried to draw on him. 

Which "black guy" are you talking about? And really it doesn't matter since it's not relevant to the moment or incident. 

Question for you: Can you define for me when a person forfeits their right to self defense. Apparently its when you go to riots, de-escalate multiple situations (per witnesses on stand under oath), put out fires, administer aid, clean up buildings the day before, etc. If you forfeit your right to self defense for being in an environment like that then why do the ones who were shot have any claim at all? The second and third guys could have simply left the area instead of charging Rittenhouse who ran two blocks past a hundred people without shooting anyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Castanza said:

Question for you: Can you define for me when a person forfeits their right to self defense. 

For me, I want to know why he was being chased.  What did he do to provoke them? 

If I cannot find any evidence of Rittenhouse provoking them then I would say that he was indeed within his right to shoot a man pointing a gun at his head.  No argument from me.  Yes, he was within his right to shoot a man beating him in the head with a skateboard.  And yes, I'm okay with him shooting the guy who reached for his gun.

 

My questions are:

1.  Why did he shoot him 4 times?  Is that reasonable?  Is he allowed to unload his clip on him?  Can he shoot him 15 times?  What should we believe is reasonable?

Having some experience playing paintball in high school 32 years ago with friends who souped up their guns, that shit REALLY hurts and my adrenaline would really get going and I can fully understand Rittenhouse pulling the trigger 4 times in a more frightening scenario such as being chased and beaten at a riot.

Plus, one of the guys (not shot) involved in the chase fired a gun and would have terrified Rittenhouse.

 

So, I'm not really in favor of jailing this deranged teenager with terrible judgement...

 

... unless he provoked them.  WHY did they chase him?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

For me, I want to know why he was being chased.  What did he do to provoke them? 

If I cannot find any evidence of Rittenhouse provoking them then I would say that he was indeed within his right to shoot a man pointing a gun at his head.  No argument from me.  Yes, he was within his right to shoot a man beating him in the head with a skateboard.  And yes, I'm okay with him shooting the guy who reached for his gun.

 

My questions are:

1.  Why did he shoot him 4 times?  Is that reasonable?  Is he allowed to unload his clip on him?  Can he shoot him 15 times?  What should we believe is reasonable?

Having some experience playing paintball in high school 32 years ago with friends who souped up their guns, that shit REALLY hurts and my adrenaline would really get going and I can fully understand Rittenhouse pulling the trigger 4 times in a more frightening scenario such as being chased and beaten at a riot.

Plus, one of the guys (not shot) involved in the chase fired a gun and would have terrified Rittenhouse.

 

So, I'm not really in favor of jailing this deranged teenager with terrible judgement...

 

... unless he provoked them.  WHY did they chase him?  

 

 

From what I saw there isn't evidence to suggest that Rittenhouse provoked the first individual. I'd say it could be questionable shooting the first guy since he did not have a weapon. But he did charge him twice and continued to pursue him. He also made repeated threats during the night that he was going to slit his throat and kill him and other stuff like that. Not sure if that's reasonable or not. Guess the jury will decide. 

 

A friend of mine who is a Green Beret told me that he put no less than 5 rounds in a threat when clearing houses. So that's 6 threats with a 30rd mag. I think 4 shots is pretty reasonable and actually shows quite a bit of restraint for someone who A- doesn't have combat experience B- was on the defensive not offensive and C- The guy with the gun is not dead. Rittenhouse held off on continuing to shoot him once the guy backed off. The guy was also never disarmed (shown in pictures)

Guess we will find out soon enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case is in the jury’s hands at this point so we will see what happens. What I do know is there is a lot of misinformation out there, and I think that is morally wrong. I found what I believe to be the most factual and unbiased take I have seen thus far on the main points of the case, which I’ve included as a link below. I think everyone has the right to come to their own conclusion, but it has to be based on the facts, not a political agenda (and I say that in reference to both the left and right). I will caveat this video with the fact that I do not know the man’s political views or how credible he is as a doctor. Based on what I can find, he seems to be well respected, but I will let everyone do their own research come to their own conclusions. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Parsad said:

Why am I not at all surprised by this verdict?  Cheers!

You're right, nobody should be surprised since it was the proper ruling. The court system and jury of peers selected by the defense and agreed on by the prosecution defended ones right to self defense based on evidence that was show in its entirety (including extra drone footage presented by the prosecution AFTER closing arguments). The judge went out of his way to allow the jury to see any piece of evidence as many times as they wanted. 

I hope Rittenhouse sues every politician who slandered him before trial. Omar called him a "domestic terrorist", and even the President! The sitting POTUS called him a "white supremacist" before any trial or evidence was presented. This kid had charges (clearly politically motivated) levied against him before any formal investigation was done (way outside of standard procedure and civil rights). He was banned from raising any support on GoFundMe as they called him a mass shooter. Facebook, CNN, MSNBC all slandered him in the news constantly. I hope he sues them for millions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Castanza said:

You're right, nobody should be surprised since it was the proper ruling. The court system and jury of peers selected by the defense and agreed on by the prosecution defended ones right to self defense based on evidence that was show in its entirety (including extra drone footage presented by the prosecution AFTER closing arguments). The judge went out of his way to allow the jury to see any piece of evidence as many times as they wanted. 

I hope Rittenhouse sues every politician who slandered him before trial. Omar called him a "domestic terrorist", and even the President! The sitting POTUS called him a "white supremacist" before any trial or evidence was presented. This kid had charges (clearly politically motivated) levied against him before any formal investigation was done (way outside of standard procedure and civil rights). He was banned from raising any support on GoFundMe as they called him a mass shooter. Facebook, CNN, MSNBC all slandered him in the news constantly. I hope he sues them for millions. 

 

Whatever Castanza!  OJ is free, now Kyle Rittenhouse is too...a failure of the courts.

There was evidence of Rittenhouse's association with the Proud Boys and photos of him flashing racist signs at a bar...these were not allowed as evidence by the Judge.

At the very least, he should have been charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon.  He should have gotten at least 5-10 years...but now he gets to walk free after killing two people.  Cheers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea its laughable and sad at the same time. There is ZERO accountability anywhere. No mea culpa, no "we take responsibility for being wrong"...no, "we misled everyone"....despite and obvious open and shut case and verdict that corresponds....we will now hear how somehow this was the result of racism and injustice or some lame shit like that. Then they wonder why we think all journalists are scumbags and enemies of the people....

 

I agree he was definitely guilty of some things, however the asshat prosecutor was too busy trying to make a political statement and public spectacle(likely for his own selfish reasons) that he fucked everything up. Sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean lets put this in perspective....

 

Jacob Blake was a scumbag and a violent criminal...the two people who Kyle shot, both were violent criminals and one was a raging pedophile.....

IDK but seems like everything turned out fine and the world is a better place. But leave it to the left and Blake is a hero, the pedophile and his pal are martyrs, and the 17 year old kid who earlier that day was washing vandal derived graffiti off a school building is the devil....makes total sense LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parsad said:

Whatever Castanza!  OJ is free, now Kyle Rittenhouse is too...a failure of the courts.

There was evidence of Rittenhouse's association with the Proud Boys and photos of him flashing racist signs at a bar...these were not allowed as evidence by the Judge.

At the very least, he should have been charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon.  He should have gotten at least 5-10 years...but now he gets to walk free after killing two people.  Cheers! 

LMFAO Sanjeev is it a crime for someone to be associated with a group? It's not a crime to be an anti-white BLM racist just like it's not a crime to be a Nazi if one chooses to be. Even if it was proven that he was a "proud boys member" (zero evidence to suggest this) it ultimately doesn't matter for the specific case incident. Comparing him to OJ is also ridiculous...There was zero evidence or situations the remotely resembled the notorious "glove doesn't fit" incident. The judge allowed every piece of evidence that pertained to the case. 

He shot white people. He shot convicted felons. He shot convicted rapists. He shot them in self defense...perhaps he should have defended himself with a rubber chicken against a convicted rapist who had a firearm....Next time a woman protects herself with a firearm from being raped, please go tell her that she is a POS and that she should get 5-10 for assault with a deadly weapon. "recklessly endangering society" during a riot with hundreds of people starting fires, breaking windows, flipping cars, LOL "C'mon Man!" - Sleep Joe 

Your excuses are wanting. Honestly I respect you and most of your political opinions on this board. But your logic on this one is completely lacking. We obviously won't see eye to eye on this and that's fine. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at this damage control 😂 All of a sudden CNN has the facts right. Don’t mind the fact that everything they state was known for almost a week while they continued to spew political nonsense and lies.  
 

Counterfeit News Network

MSNBC got kicked all access revoked after they tried to follow jury members 

 

I honestly believe that anyone who watched the trial would have arrived at the same conclusion as the jury. If you chose to get updates from msm…. well,  I understand your stance. 

 

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...