Judge will allow Kyle Rittenhouse's defense to refer to the men he shot as 'rioters,' 'looters,' or 'arsonists' at trial

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jeremy-in-nc  •  one month ago  •  447 comments

By:   Michelle Mark and Haven Orecchio-Egresitz

Judge will allow Kyle Rittenhouse's defense to refer to the men he shot as 'rioters,' 'looters,' or 'arsonists' at trial
Schroeder's decision on Monday was part of a broader hearing laying out the ground rules of Rittenhouse's trial, which is set to begin on November 1.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A Wisconsin judge ruled Monday that   Kyle Rittenhouse's defense   team is free to refer to the men he shot as "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" during the teenager's upcoming trial — so long as they provide evidence.

Rittenhouse, 18, is charged with fatally shooting two men and injuring a third amid civil unrest in August 2020 following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Rittenhouse has pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defense, saying he opened fire on Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz because they were chasing him.

Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder issued the ruling after prosecutors had argued that Rittenhouse's lawyers should be banned from using "pejorative terms" to describe Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz.

Schroeder's decision on Monday was part of a broader hearing laying out the ground rules of Rittenhouse's trial, which is set to begin on November 1.

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger had argued in a recent motion that Rittenhouse's lawyers should be banned from using the terms, since prosecutors will be banned from referring to the dead or injured men as "victims."

But Schroeder disagreed, saying the two scenarios were not the same. It's common for judges across the country to   ban the word "victim" during trials , because it implies that a crime was committed and could therefore prejudice a jury against a defendant.

But since Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are not the ones on trial, Rittenhouse's defense team is free to describe them as "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" so long as they provide evidence that the men were rioting, looting, or committing arson, Schroeder said.

Grosskreutz, the only survivor, has not been charged with rioting, looting, arson, or any other crime in connection to the Kenosha protests.

"He can demonize him if he wants, if he thinks he'll score points with the jury," Schroeder told prosecutors, referring to Rittenhouse's defense lawyer.

He added that prosecutors are similarly free to use their own harsh terms to describe Rittenhouse, such as "cold-blooded killer," so long as they back up those terms with evidence.https://www.insider.com/kyle-rittenhouse-judge-allows-defense-to-use-terms-rioters-looters-2021-10





Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago
But Schroeder disagreed, saying the two scenarios were not the same. It's common for judges across the country to      ban the word "victim" during trials  , because it implies that a crime was committed and could therefore prejudice a jury against a defendant.

That's going to piss off a lot of people.  

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1  squiggy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1    one month ago

“…used a semiautomatic rifle that resembles the made-for-the-military AR-15.”

… but NBC News has no problem using perjoratives to say ‘gun’.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1    one month ago

Good!  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    one month ago

Rittenhouse is a cold blooded little killer scumbag thug conservative in training.  

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
2.1  gooseisback  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago
Rittenhouse is a cold blooded little killer

Of course he is, he should have just laid there and take his beating from the rioters and arsonists.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisback @2.1    one month ago

You're just making stuff up.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.2  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago

… so he gets a fair hangin, right?

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
2.2.1  GregTx  replied to  squiggy @2.2    one month ago

No doubt with the shortest rope possible..

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
2.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  squiggy @2.2    one month ago

Democrats would pull the lever, eh?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    one month ago
 

Judge Will Allow Kyle Rittenhouse's Defense To Refer To The Men He Shot As 'Rioters,' 'Looters,' Or 'Arsonists' At Trial

But the killer is lying.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @3    one month ago

Like Rittenhouse you have to prove it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3.2  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3    one month ago

That's the purpose of the trial.  To get to the truth and hand out punishment as needed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2    one month ago

Truth is he's a little conservative right wing domestic terrorist killer in training.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
3.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    one month ago

Just like the prosecutors you still need to prove it. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.2    one month ago

It's true.  I don't have to prove DICK.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3.2.5  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    one month ago

Again, your proof would be where?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.5    one month ago

See 3.2.3

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3.2.7  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.6    one month ago

Nothing there.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
3.2.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.6    one month ago

I'd rather see what was posted in 3.2.4

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
3.2.9  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.8    one month ago

No you wouldn'tjrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.9    one month ago

I'm not the subject of this 'article' sparky and all you other [deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5  Sean Treacy    one month ago

I saw an interesting tweet that noting that the people who get their news from the msm are going to be so surprised and angry when he is found not guilty.

the reporting has been so dishonest about what happened.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one month ago

"the reporting has been so dishonest about what happened."

Of course it has. The liberal left controlled media would not have it any other way. They and those who believe what is said actively try to stomp on anything that does not exactly match their particular political narratives. The young man may indeed be guilty, but I prefer to wait until the jury verdict comes out rather than trying and convicting in the court of public opinion like some people here are doing.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.1.1  Veronica  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1    one month ago

So you approve of vigilantism?  Because Mr. Rittenhouse was not defending his home or property - he didn't live in Wisconsin but in Illinois - so he loaded himself with lots & lots of "arms" and took a road trip to do what?  He went to SHOOT people.  If you think it is ok for people to just go to some random town and start shooting people you are fucking NUTS.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Veronica @5.1.1    one month ago

and is not vigilantism , the act of taking matters of law into ones own hands , and not having the authorized authorities handle the situation?

and how does , the actions of those that were shot differ from what the Kenosha Kid ?

Did they not also take matters into their own hands without authority and their actions further ignite the situation to the end we saw ? 

As we see , all actions have consequences , just be sure one is up to face them .

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Veronica @5.1.1    one month ago
He went to SHOOT people. 

Bullshit. He went to stop people from doing the rioting, looting, and burning shit to the ground. Over zealous? Yep. Nothing more.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.2    one month ago

Exactly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.3    one month ago
"He went to SHOOT people."
"Bullshit. He went to stop people from doing the rioting, looting, and burning shit to the ground. Over zealous? Yep. Nothing more."

YOU ARE CORRECT Veronica.  He didn't go to stop anyone from doing anything - he just went to shoot people - like the good little republican in training he is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @5.1.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.1.7  Veronica  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.2    one month ago
the actions of those that were shot differ from what the Kenosha Kid ?

I'm not saying it is, but does that make it OK for him to go there & shoot people?  So the consequences these people should have faced is some asshole pretend cowboy with NO authority to go there & shoot them.  Is that how you REALLY want the country to be - Old West Style?  What a bunch of shit.  I am sure if you were speeding you wouldn't want some asshole to pull up alongside you & shoot you, would you.  After all you were breaking the law & speeding is dangerous & could kill people... Do you get it yet?

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.1.8  Veronica  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.5    one month ago

Soo, I have jj on ignore, so I am assuming that is his response you quoted.  

Overzealous????  That is what he is calling shooting people?  And by whose authority did he shoot these people?  Does that mean I can pull up alongside jj if he is speeding & shoot him?  I am only being overzealous since speeding is dangerous & can lead to deaths.  

What a bunch of spewed bullshit these people are spouting.  They wouldn't be so lenient if this person had shot and killed someone in their family.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.3    one month ago

So you are cheering on some kind of vigilante justice?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @5.1.8    one month ago

"Soo, I have jj on ignore, so I am assuming that is his response you quoted. 

(What a good idea Veronica - I don't waste my time responding to certain posters)

Overzealous????  That is what he is calling shooting people?  And by whose authority did he shoot these people?  Does that mean I can pull up alongside jj if he is speeding & shoot him?  I am only being overzealous since speeding is dangerous & can lead to deaths.  

What a bunch of spewed bullshit these people are spouting.  They wouldn't be so lenient if this person had shot and killed someone in their family."

Yeah, calling a scumbag little killer republican in training - who killed innocent people - who weren't doing anything other than protesting - overzealous . . . . .

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Veronica @5.1.7    one month ago

(chuckling )  well the prosecution is going to have to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt he went there simply to shoot people . Like a few here are stating and cannot prove .

 Funny thing is i have seen no reporting since the incident on exactly what this kids connection to the town is . absent that , its all supposition .

 being where he lived and kenosha is only a 20 to 30 min car ride , is it possible he has relations in town? what about a girlfriend or girlfriends family that said they needed help?

 has not been reported and we are not privy to that info at this time .

 Now if you are asking me , if i got wind of some civil unrest by a certain group of individuals , would i sit out on my front porch with a shot gun and some popcorn  to watch what goes down and make sure my property were not maliciously damaged? bet your 3rd point of contact i would .

what i can and cant do depends entirely on where i happen to be , and thats something i understand , that many dont .

 but thats about as "old west style" as i would go . and it does not mean i wouldnt defend myself from those that think they have the right to do things they aught not .

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.1.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @5.1.9    one month ago

Nope. The kid thought he was superman and decided to go play John Wayne and got in over his overly zealous head and found himself in a situation he was not ready for. Vigilante I don't believe was in his "plan". he thought his mere presence would be enough to stop people. He was wrong and ended up having to defend himself.

See 10.1 below for facts that at least one person on here found.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.11    one month ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif       jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif         jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.11    one month ago

You cannot compare sitting on your porch to someone running in the street.

Not the same.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5.1.9    one month ago

Obviously - this punk is just a republican cold blooded killer in training.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.11    one month ago
" being where he lived and kenosha is only a 20 to 30 min car ride , is it possible he has relations in town? what about a girlfriend or girlfriends family that said they needed help?"

What a made up bunch of bullshit!  Where'd you pull all that garbage from?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.12    one month ago

I don't need his loaded version. I have seen the video.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.1.18  Veronica  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.11    one month ago
has not been reported and we are not privy to that info at this time .

Maybe you should contact a Conservative news outlet & get them to report on it then.  After all those are the only ones that are factual (sarcasm).

Now if you are asking me , if i got wind of some civil unrest by a certain group of individuals , would i sit out on my front porch with a shot gun and some popcorn  to watch what goes down and make sure my property were not maliciously damaged? bet your 3rd point of contact i would .

To be honest so would my hubby, I have no issue with that.  That is yours.  And our home is ours, but we are not driving 20 to 30 minutes from our home going  into a street & shooting people.

I just hope that all the facts are conveyed in court and that justice is served.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5.1.14    one month ago

"You cannot compare sitting on your porch to someone running in the street.

Not the same."

Look at all the other bullshit made up scenarios!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.1.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Veronica @5.1.8    one month ago
Does that mean I can pull up alongside jj if he is speeding & shoot him?  I am only being overzealous since speeding is dangerous & can lead to deaths. 

No because to pull up along side me you yourself would be speeding and if you shot me it would lead to death. Your argument doesn't hold water...........LMMFAO

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.21  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Veronica @5.1.18    one month ago
I just hope that all the facts are conveyed in court and that justice is served.

as do I

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
5.1.22  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Veronica @5.1.1    one month ago
  Because Mr. Rittenhouse was not defending his home or property - he didn't live in Wisconsin but in Illinois - so he loaded himself with lots & lots of "arms" and took a road trip to do what?

In the video's is could be said he was defending himself.  

He went to SHOOT people.

And you have proof of his intent where? Has it been turned over to law enforcement?  Or is this your opinion. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
5.1.23  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.19    one month ago
Look at all the other bullshit made up scenarios!

You mean like the scenario that the shooting happened during a "protest"?

Or how about the scenario where he is a right wing domestic terrorist.

Or the hilarious scenario where the media reporting was truthful?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.24  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @5.1.16    one month ago

the fact i use to travel 2 hrs to visit my future wife at the time i was close to that age  ....and i remember what the male hormones are capable of at that age , even if i am not subject to their affect any longer .

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.24    one month ago

It's all nonsense.  Ignorant nonsense.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.26  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @5.1.19    one month ago

never said it was the same . 

look at all the bs scenarios? like yours ? to get a predetermined outcome?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.26    one month ago

I never said you said it was the same thing. 

I didn't make up any scenarios - I've told the truth - unlike the alleged conservatives here.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1.28  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Veronica @5.1.1    one month ago

You will never convince the ammosexuals here that Rittenhouse was wrong in what he did.  Hopefully the jury will render the proper sentence and put that POS in a cell, throw away the key, and then throw away the cell.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.1.29  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Veronica @5.1.1    one month ago

No, I do not approve of vigilantism. I said nothing of what you said. Please reread my post before attempting to put words in my mouth. My point was that court of law will determine his guilt or innocence and I prefer to wait until the court's verdict. Nothing more, nothing less. Have a good day.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.30  gooseisback  replied to  Veronica @5.1.1    one month ago
So you approve of vigilantism?

Your not a vigilante when someone is attacking YOU!!!!

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.1.31  Veronica  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.29    one month ago

Heehee - but you have to get jabs in "left leaning media" as if anything on media is truth anymore.  Man up & admit that you are biased because of "left leaning media".  Would you believe the reports from Fox news?

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.1.32  Veronica  replied to  gooseisback @5.1.30    one month ago

So I can shoot someone that is speeding? Or someone that gets in their car drunk?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @5.1.32    one month ago
So I can shoot someone that is speeding? Or someone that gets in their car drunk?

Oh, yeah...............jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png equals this jrSmiley_116_smiley_image.png

Your not a vigilante when someone is attacking YOU!!!!

SMMFH

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.1.34  gooseisback  replied to  Veronica @5.1.32    one month ago
So I can shoot someone that is speeding? Or someone that gets in their car drunk?

Well........I guess you can, you'll probably go to jail, maybe for the rest of your life. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.28    one month ago

"You will never convince the ammosexuals here that Rittenhouse was wrong in what he did.  Hopefully the jury will render the proper sentence and put that POS in a cell, throw away the key, and then throw away the cell."

Yup just another right wing domestic terrorist for the cause - like Babbitt.  They went looking to terrorize and only one of them didn't get away with it - at least not yet.  

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.36  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.10    one month ago

(What a good idea Veronica - I don't waste my time responding to certain posters)

Why would you put on blinders and earmuffs to join a discussion? You didn’t come to exchange points of view - that’s just pissing on the couch.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.1.37  Jack_TX  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.2    one month ago
As we see , all actions have consequences , just be sure one is up to face them .

I think this may be a defining theme of our time.  We have a number of people in this country who believe that you should not be subject to the consequences of your actions if they were done as some sort of statement that aligns with their political doctrine.

We all know what happens to men who look for trouble.  They find it.  They have nobody to blame, and no excuse to make. 

None of these people should have been there. There really isn't any excuse for a kid who drives into another state with his AR looking for trouble.  Neither is there any excuse for any of these assholes to be torching this town.

When you're participating in a riot...and you see some guy running down the street with an AR-15... run the other way.  Under no circumstances should you run toward him and attempt to cave his head in with your skateboard.  You really can't complain when you get shot under those circumstances.

Similarly, when you drive to another state with an assault rifle looking to engage people you disagree with politically...and then you shoot several of them.. you can't really complain when they send your ass to prison, even if it's not for murder.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
5.1.38  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.15    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1.39  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.35    one month ago

This liberal  owns a few firearms but  never considered myself an "ammosexual".

Haven't even shot one of them in a month of Sundays.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one month ago

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17 year old fanboy of right wing "patriotism",  traveled across state lines in order to take part in a militia defense of private businesses in Kenosha Wisconsin. He brought an AR-15 style rifle with him. 

After hooking up so to speak with on site militia he was given a station in front of a warehouse or something to stand guard over. As time went on he grew bored with the fact that he wasnt seeing any action and wandered off down the road to get closer to where the action (BLM protests) was. In the course of a period of time he jackassed, displayed his weapon to intimidate protesters, and was in turn mocked and teased by protesters. At some point he got engaged in a foot chase with some protesters , which ended up out of view from cameras and after some sort of struggle he shot and killed a guy. He was then chased down the street by other protesters, one of which hit him with a skateboard and then Rittenhouse shot and killed that guy and shot another guy. 

I have doubts they will convict him of murder, I seriously doubt if there is evidence against him beyond a reasonable doubt. 

But this punk is not "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination.  He went to Kenosha looking for "action" . He was given a post to protect property and he left that post to go to where it was more exciting. He was looking to instigate himself into a situation where he could be a big man and wave his weapon around and act like Rambo. 

It is a shame that some people want to defend his actions. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    one month ago

Thank you so much for the facts of the matter John!  Don't see it anywhere else from the alleged conservatives.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    one month ago
At some point he got engaged in a foot chase with some protesters ,

He was being chased by protesters. That's not disputed. Why would you phrase that so oddly? 

 a shame that some people want to defend his actions. 

It's a shame some people think kids should be accused of murder to fit their political narrative. 

I'm not defending Rittenhouse's choice to be there.

I'm defending the rule of law. The evidence is overwhelming he was not the aggressor.  There is no law  that says you have to let yourself be assaulted by a violent mob. He did the right thing to to deescalate the situation by tying to run  away (so much for the "he wanted to shoot people narrative) and  he was attacked by a looter. No honest person would say he wasn't reasonably afraid for  his life when he pulled the trigger.   

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.2    one month ago

Thanks for the facts of the matter Sean.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.2    one month ago

So according to you, he fired his weapon into the crowd to deescalate the situation and then people started chasing him.

Not a great defense....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.2    one month ago

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. He wanted to intimidate unarmed protesters with his AR-15 weapon.  On what possible authority was he doing that?  He's not law enforcement. He's nobody. 

In both instances where he shot people he was able to "defend himself" precisely because he was carrying a high powered weapon. 

So someone hit him with a skateboard. That is a reason to shoot to kill? The only reason he was able to shoot to kill is because he had the weapon on him. If he didnt have the weapon he wouldnt have got into any trouble.  We have police and national guard that protect citizens  and property. We shouldnt have deluded 17 year old punks on the streets trying to play Rambo or John Wayne. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.5    one month ago
he was carrying a high powered weapon

Illegally...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
5.2.7  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.5    one month ago
because he was carrying a high powered weapon.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif   An AR-15 a high powered weapon.  Now THAT is funny.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @5.2.4    one month ago
ording to you, he fired his weapon into the crowd to deescalate the situation and then people started chasing him

Not at all. He only fired his weapon after the child molester started chasing him, right as a shot appears to have been fired at him, and the molester who was chasing him reached for his gun. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5.2.4    one month ago
"So according to you, he fired his weapon into the crowd to deescalate the situation and then people started chasing him. Not a great defense...."

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

So firing a weapon into a crowd is a way to deescalate a situation??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.2    one month ago

No facts provided whatsoever.  So no thanks should be offered.  

If this little republican killer in training was being chased - it was because he just shot an innocent person in cold blood

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    one month ago
He brought an AR-15 style rifle with him. 

he brought it ? or it was already there? 

 see it was initially reported it was already there ( possible straw purchase maybe?)when he got there , which would lead one to think he had a connection there.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @5.2.4    one month ago

So did you not read 10.1?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.5    one month ago
On what possible authority was he doing that?  He's not law enforcement. He's nobody. 

So, anyone who carries a gun is asking to be attacked and loses the right to self defense?

stances where he shot people he was able to "defend himself" precisely

yeah, that's the point of carrying a gun and using it in self defense. 

If he didnt have the weapon he wouldnt have got into any trouble. 

And if no rioters had attacked him, no one would have been shot. 

tWe shouldnt have deluded 17 year old punks on the streets trying to play Rambo or John Wayne. ers attacked him, no one would have been shot. 

John Wayne or Rambo usually don't run away like he did when someone attacks them. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.11    one month ago
"he brought it ? or it was already there?"

No it wasn't already there.  The little republican killer in training bought the gun with him - and mommy took him.  

He has no connection there.  The gun was not already there.  He just wanted to prove to be the good little republican killer in training that he is.  

Also, there are no facts to be found in comment 10.1

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.15  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.8    one month ago

So we have one of you all saying we didn't see the first shooting as there seems to be no video of it. Now you are saying others were chasing him, I guess for no reason.

So which is it? I am getting different scenarios from all of you.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.16  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.12    one month ago

If there was no video of the first shooting...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.17  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.9    one month ago

I swear, some are bending over backwards to protect the murderer.

We all know for a fact if someone shot some right wing people like that, the right wing would already have the gallows set up.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.2.18  Kathleen  replied to  Ender @5.2.17    one month ago

We should wait to see what they say in court. Don’t you think it’s best to see all the evidence first? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5.2.17    one month ago

"I swear, some are bending over backwards to protect the murderer."

As usual - whenever it is a republican killing innocent folks.  What else is new?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.20  Ender  replied to  Kathleen @5.2.18    one month ago

The only evidence is the video.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.8    one month ago

Why do you keep calling someone a child molester? Was he trying to molest Rittenhouse, who was after all a child at the time he shot three people? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.2.22  Kathleen  replied to  Ender @5.2.20    one month ago

You can’t be sure until we see everything. 

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
5.2.23  JaneDoe  replied to  Ender @5.2.20    one month ago

Maybe we haven’t seen all of the video. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.13    one month ago
On what possible authority was he doing that?  He's not law enforcement. He's nobody. 
So, anyone who carries a gun is asking to be attacked and loses the right to self defense?

So you cant explain why he was carrying a gun to a protest scene, and acting like he was in authority,  when he is not law enforcement or military. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.24    one month ago
So you cant explain why he was carrying a gun to a protest scene, and acting like he was in authority,  when he is not law enforcement or military. 

He needs no explanation for his presence there.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.28  Tessylo  replied to  GregTx @5.2.27    one month ago

Which has nothing to do with him being shot by this cold blooded right wing thug.  

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
5.2.29  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.28    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.2.30  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    one month ago

He was not even legally entitled to own the firearm he used.  That alone should get him a few years as Bubba's bitch.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.2.31  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    one month ago
It is a shame that some people want to defend his actions

What was he suppose to do John?  FYI not be there is not an answer.. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.2.32  Veronica  replied to  gooseisback @5.2.31    one month ago
FYI not be there is not an answer.. 

Sure it is - he had no authority to be there waving a gun around.  If I see a gun waving around I would think that was a threat - would you?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.33  JohnRussell  replied to  gooseisback @5.2.31    one month ago

First of all, he should not have been in Kenosha, where he did not live, during a riot.  Second , he should not have been carrying a gun. He's not law enforcement or military. Third, once he was there with his gun he should have stayed in front of the business where some militia guy gave him to stand guard  and not decide to go somewhere else where he could hear something was going on. 

He had no authority to do anything, but once he was there he should have minded his own business and stayed in front of the building they told him to guard. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.2.34  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2.30    one month ago

Who said he owned it? You don't have to own a firearm to use a firearm in the country in which I live..........................

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.2.35  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.5    one month ago
Rittenhouse went looking for trouble.

Prove it!

He wanted to intimidate unarmed protesters

Huh...every video I saw Rittenhouse was being CHASED by the rioters.

he was able to "defend himself" precisely because he was carrying a high powered weapon. 

What would you suggest, "Bad Language".

So someone hit him with a skateboard.

Hate to sound callous, but if you are dumb enough to attack someone with a gun, you deserve what you get. 

If he didnt have the weapon he wouldnt have got into any trouble.

If the rioters would have stayed home in their Mom's basement they would be alive today. 

We have police and national guard that protect citizens  and property.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.33    one month ago
First of all, he should not have been in Kenosha, where he did not live, during a riot. 

oh, so NOW it was a riot, like we were telling you on day one.

What right do you have to tell people where they can and can not go in America?

Do you really believe that only Kenosha residents were there rioting?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.2.37  gooseisback  replied to  Veronica @5.2.32    one month ago
he had no authority to be there

Says who.....you. 

If I see a gun waving around I would think that was a threat - would you?

I sure as hell wouldn't chase him !!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.38  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.36    one month ago

So you think a 17 year old should have walked into an area where there was civil turmoil armed with a deadly weapon ?  

[deleted]

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.2.39  Veronica  replied to  gooseisback @5.2.37    one month ago

[deleted]  What authority did he have to be there? Was he a police officer?  Was he military?  Or was he just a fucking nutjob waving a gun around?  

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
5.2.40  Veronica  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.38    one month ago
Is there something wrong with you? 

We all know the answer to that.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.2.41  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.33    one month ago
where he did not live, during a riot

What...just rioters can be from out of town?

He had no authority to do anything, but once he was there he should have minded his own business and stayed in front of the building they told him to guard. 

The dumbasses that elected to chase him had "no authority" as well.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.42  JohnRussell  replied to  gooseisback @5.2.41    one month ago

they didnt shoot anybody

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.2.43  gooseisback  replied to  Veronica @5.2.39    one month ago

[deleted]

What authority did he have to be there?

What authority did the RIOTERS have to be there. 

Or was he just a fucking nutjob waving a gun around?

What part of you don't chase people and try to do bodily injury don't you understand. If people are so fucking stupid to chase and attack someone with a firearm they deserve what they get.  

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.2.44  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.42    one month ago
they didnt shoot anybody

One guy was planning to, fortunately Rittenhouse is a good shot.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.45  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisback @5.2.44    one month ago

"One guy was planning to, fortunately Rittenhouse is a good shot."

How the fuck could you know that?

You don't.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.46  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisback @5.2.43    one month ago
"If people are so fucking stupid to chase and attack someone with a firearm they deserve what they get." 

That is one of the most stupid fucking things you have said and you have offered up some real whoppers.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.2.47  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.45    one month ago

The dumbass with the gun a little bit away from the dumbass with the skateboard. See the photos at 14.2.41.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.2.48  gooseisback  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.45    one month ago
How the fuck could you know that?

Ahhhhh....its on the video, maybe you should watch it. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.2.49  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.46    one month ago

Why is it stupid? It is what occurred FFS

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.50  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2.30    one month ago

actually he COULD own it , he just couldnt buy it himself .

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
5.2.51  gooseisback  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.46    one month ago
That is one of the most stupid fucking things you have said

Tell me......what should you do when you are being attacked and beaten?  

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.2.52  Kathleen  replied to  GregTx @5.2.27    one month ago

Well... Well...Is there anything worse then standing up for a child molester?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.2.53  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.33    one month ago

4th - He was not legally able to possess that firearm.  I understand that mommy gave it to him.  LOCK HER UP!

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.2.54  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2.53    one month ago

Yeah well ..... rioting, looting and arson isn't legal either.   Lock up all those moms and grandma's that let their little hipsters leave the basement to do all that illegal shit.

I'm sure the [deleted] in stir would love them some hipster mom and grandma as well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.55  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.38    one month ago
So you think a 17 year old should have walked into an area where there was civil turmoil armed with a deadly weapon ?  

I really hate it when people assume dumbfuck things about me.

No where did I say that he should have been there, I said YOU don't have the right to decide where people can and can not go.

He had as much right to be there as any of the people looting and rioting and committing arson.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.56  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @5.2.39    one month ago
What authority did he have to be there?

What authority is NEEDED for Americans to travel freely?

have the progressive liberals managed to pass something regarding THAT, too?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.57  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.46    one month ago
That is one of the most stupid fucking things you have said

So you think chasing someone armed with a rifle is SMART???????????????????????????????????

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
5.2.58  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.24    one month ago

First, it wasn't a "protest scene"; rioting, looting, arson, and assault are not acceptable forms of protest. You also forgot to mention some of those not so peaceful protesters were also armed- unless carrying a pistol to a protest is acceptable? 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.2.59  cjcold  replied to  gooseisback @5.2.35    one month ago

In my neck of the woods help is hours away

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.2.60  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @5.2.18    one month ago

I wonder what the response of the left would have been if the rioter with the handgun chasing the young man had fired at at and hit Rittenhouse first? Would they still be vilifying Rittenhouse as the instigator just for carrying a AR 15 style weapon? Probably so.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.2.61  Kathleen  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.2.60    one month ago

Nothing surprises me anymore with them. I am sure they would expect for you to not defend yourself. Sometimes I would like to see what some of these people would do if they were there. They ‘focus’ on the wrong things.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.62  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @5.2.39    4 weeks ago

Those who claimed he was guarding a car dealer is lying also - that dealer never asked this little thug/killer to guard anything.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.3  Kathleen  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one month ago

Hopefully there will not be any rioting, looting and arson if that happens.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6  Tessylo    one month ago

"the reporting has been so dishonest about what happened."

No, it wasn't.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
6.1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6    one month ago
No, it wasn't.

How so?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
6.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1    one month ago

It was. You know it, I know it, and deep down just about everyone with two functioning brain cells knows it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1    one month ago

It was truthful.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
6.1.3  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.2    one month ago

Give me an example.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.3    one month ago

Not necessary unless you don't believe the truth - then that's on YOU.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
6.1.5  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.4    one month ago

It is necessary.  There are 2 people here asking you to back up your claim.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.5    one month ago

It's true.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
6.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.6    one month ago

Documentation please.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
6.1.8  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.6    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
6.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.8    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.8    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.7    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.9    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
6.1.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.11    one month ago

Then I guess you have nothing. You have a good day now.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.12    one month ago
See 6.1.10

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.13    one month ago

As usual, it is you and the alleged conservatives, WHO HAVE NOTHING.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
6.1.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.15    one month ago

I am not the one who made a statement and then could or would not back themselves up. Not on me to provide anything so the onus is on you, and I asked you very politely to do do in post # 6.1.7.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
7  evilgenius    one month ago

The ruling is the defendant's lawyer can use those terms IF the defense has evidence to back up those claims. I'm pretty sure the ruling can also be appealed by the prosecution.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @7    one month ago

It can’t be appealed until after the trial. Good luck on getting a not guilty verdict thrown out on that basis.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
7.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1    one month ago
It can’t be appealed until after the trial. Good luck on getting a not guilty verdict thrown out on that basis.

hmmm... I had to deep dive the interwebs and you are correct. Though if the prosecutors could show enough bias the case could be thrown out and retried. Again that would be a hard sell for sure. Were the defense to use the terms without evidence the prosecution will eat them alive. Also any lawyer worth their salary should be able to make anyone look like a saint without using the word victim. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilgenius @7    one month ago

in other words they ( the defense ) can call them whatever the defense has proof of , not hard with the videos and the individuals actions  .

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     one month ago

We'll see what the jury decides, if he's found guilty he won't have mommy to protect him in lock up. 

If he's found not guilty I believe that he'll end up being just another loser on the street with mommy trying to protect him.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1  Ender  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago

He has already been taken care of by the extremist group.

I bet if he is found innocent, we will end up seeing his name again.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
8.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago

His new "mommy" will be named Bubba.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
9  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

And to add to this, the "rioters, looters, and arsonists" cannot be referred to as "victims". This is going to be interesting to say the least. 

original A Wisconsin judge ruled Monday that attorneys in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial could refer to the men the teen shot in Kenosha, Wis., last year as “rioters,” “looters” and “arsonists.” They could not, however, describe Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, who were killed, and Gaige Grosskreutz, who was wounded, as “victims” because the term was “loaded,” the judge said.
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
10  Mark in Wyoming     one month ago

I think it is going to be interesting .

 my prediction is 2 of the incidents will be judged as self defense,againt those shot  , the guy who died wielding the skateboard , and the guy who lived  and drew a handgun . the only real one in question is the very first shooting , that is the only one not on film.

 have to wait and see how that one is presented and argued .

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10    one month ago
y real one in question is the very first shooting , that is the only one not on film.

The key fact in his defense is that he ran away from the child molester who he shot first.  The molester  tried to take his gun from him as he fled, not to mention video seems to demonstrate a shot was fired at Rittenhouse  right before he fired the first time. Given the circumstances, I think it's hard to argue that he didn't have a reasonable fear of being assaulted, after he tried to avoid the confrontation by running away. 

Compare Rittenhouse to the officer who shot the unarmed woman in the capitol and this seems like an open and shut case of self defense. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
10.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1    one month ago

differing jurisdictions , and different politics involved in both cases .

 because of that , different outcomes are possible .

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.1    one month ago
ecause of that , different outcomes are possible .

For sure.  This is a jury trial, anything is possible.  It's really a roll of the dice. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
10.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1.2    one month ago

Im just glad not to be on that jury . 

 there would be a lot of pissed off protesters whom might like to do those things they should not .

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1    one month ago
"The key fact in his defense is that he ran away from the child molester who he shot first.  The molester  tried to take his gun from him as he fled, not to mention video seems to demonstrate a shot was fired at Rittenhouse  right before he fired the first time. Given the circumstances, I think it's hard to argue that he didn't have a reasonable fear of being assaulted, after he tried to avoid the confrontation by running away. 

Compare Rittenhouse to the officer who shot the unarmed woman in the capitol and this seems like an open and shut case of self defense."

What fact/facts?

Made up nonsense is all that is.  

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
10.2  zuksam  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10    one month ago

There is a film of the first but it doesn't show the actual shooting. It does show the moments leading up to the shooting, it shows Rittenhouse running from the guy who got shot. So there's no indication in any video that Rittenhouse was aggressive or intimidating, quite the opposite the videos show him running from confrontation and only using force in a last desperate act of self preservation and defense. The Videos make it clear the men who were shot were the aggressors and Rittenhouse wasn't even trying to stand his ground he was just trying to survive.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
10.2.1  gooseisback  replied to  zuksam @10.2    one month ago
There is a film of the first but it doesn't show the actual shooting.

If I am not mistaking, there was an eye witness to the first shooting.  He was stand right next to I think the guys name was Rosenbaum.  He backed up Rittenhouse's story that Rosenbaum was the aggressor and attempting to take Rittenhouse's firearm when he was shot. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
10.2.2  GregTx  replied to  gooseisback @10.2.1    one month ago

As do the wounds.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
10.2.3  JaneDoe  replied to  gooseisback @10.2.1    one month ago
Rosenbaum was the aggressor and attempting to take Rittenhouse's firearm when he was shot. 

McGinniss is his name. He was videotaping. Comment #17 from Sean provides a link to a video where he states just that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11  Sparty On    one month ago

As it should be.  

If the defense can prove they were rioting, looting or burning shit up they are allowed to call a spade a spade.

As it should be.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @11    one month ago

This little scumbag republican alleged conservative in training didn't shoot anyone who were rioting, looting, or 'burning shit up' - the little scumbag shot innocent protesters.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
11.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @11.1    one month ago

Wrong. The judge ruled they could not be called victims during trial. Keep up or please shut up. You're just trolling and not contributing anything including proof for your claims.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
11.1.2  JaneDoe  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
11.1.4  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
11.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @11.1    one month ago
This little scumbag republican alleged conservative in training didn't shoot anyone who were rioting, looting, or 'burning shit up' - the little scumbag shot innocent protesters. 

Prove it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12  Tessylo    one month ago

This little scumbag republican alleged conservative in training didn't shoot anyone who were rioting, looting, or 'burning shit up' - the little scumbag shot innocent protesters.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
12.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @12    one month ago

Not true..

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @12.1    one month ago

Yes, it is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @12    one month ago

Prove it

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
12.2.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2    one month ago

Crickets chirping...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.2.1    one month ago

yep!!!!

as expected, of course.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.2.1    one month ago
You forgot that I don't answer to y'all and some of y'all's opinions, among other things, ain't worth a penny! and also I'm not on here 24/7 like some pathetic losers.  

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
12.2.4  gooseisback  replied to  Tessylo @12.2.3    one month ago
You forgot that I don't answer to y'all [Deleted]
 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
12.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Tessylo @12    one month ago
The little scum bag democrats in training who were rioting, looting, and 'burning shit up' got shot

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
13  Hallux    one month ago

Seeing as I will not be a juror and it is doubtful that I will once again watch a trial 24-7 if it is televised, whatever wisdom I have garnered over the years tells me to stfu and leave it to those who will be directly involved. How I may personally feel about the defendant would be a travesty of justice if it were to be taken into account. The opinions on both sides are worth shit.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14  Ender    one month ago

As long as they provide evidence...

Good luck with that.

Unless they have video of the people he shot doing something, they have nothing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14    one month ago
Which is exactly what they have, as usual, NOTHING.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14    one month ago

There is video of the last 2 shot both  in the attack mode and in the act of drawing a weapon , both of which can be viewed as a use of deadly force before both shots were fired .

 so they can be called assailants right?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2    one month ago

Nonsense - all lies.  None of the innocent protesters this little republican killer shot - had any weapons of any kind.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.2  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2    one month ago

I have seen the video.

You think that after he shot at people others wouldn't try to stop him?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
14.2.3  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2    one month ago

Not in the minds of those that supported the riot.  Remember there are many who still refer to the events of that day as a "protest".

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.4  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.2.3    one month ago

What does that even mean.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.4    one month ago

He doesn't know.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
14.2.6  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @14.2.4    one month ago

Read the comment I responded to (14.2  ) then read my comment.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.2    one month ago

lets see , skateboard against rifle used as a bludgeoning weapon .... knife to a gun fight mean anything?

handgun vs rifle , odds about even . just depends on who was quickest to react

 leave out the fact its stated he was running TOWARDS the police to report the first incident  when all this occurred .....

 BTW ? how many rounds fired by him in total? so indiscriminate firing is pretty much off the table , he seems to have hit what he shot at . or there would have been a higher body count .

 way i see it , 2 people interjected themselves without any authority WITH deadly force , and the results are known .

 cant say as to the initial incident because it was not filmed .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.8  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.2.6    one month ago

Still makes no sense...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.9  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.7    one month ago

So according to you, it was only others that interjected to what he was doing?

You admit that we didn't see the first shooting yet you automatically jump to the conclusion that the guy with the skateboard was the initial aggressor.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.8    one month ago

It's all made up bullshit scenarios - no weapons of any kind for these innocent folks - who saw this republican killer in training - killing innocent people and were trying to stop him.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
14.2.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.10    one month ago

Where did you read that?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.12  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.10    one month ago

No matter what people are saying here, the kid intentionally took a loaded weapon to another city. In his mind, I guess, To protect some business.

He left the business, which he had no ties to, to go out and seek action.

And people are acting like he is some innocent and hunted person.

Bullshit. He got what he was looking for.

Then he seemed to have zero regret by going out and partying with an extremist group.

Yeah, stand up kid there....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.12    one month ago

Yet they defend him to the bitter end . . . it's deplorable and completely unsurprising. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.14  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.9    one month ago

Yes he was . 

 the video shows the kenosha kid fall , the skater dude then attacks using his skateboard edge to attack the head and neck area of the kid , then attempts with his free hand to grab the rifle which then discharges into his belly resulting in his fatal wound . 

 no made up BS just what the video showed . and no jumping to conclusion as to who the actual agressor was at the moment .

 see ? thats why im glad im not on this jury .

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
14.2.15  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @14.2.8    one month ago

work it out.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.14    one month ago

All lies - just make it up as you go along?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.17  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.14    one month ago

Yet you admit we didn't see what happened to begin with.

So we don't know if the kid was threatening them to begin with.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.18  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.2.15    one month ago

Not worth the time.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.19  Ender  replied to  Ender @14.2.17    one month ago

For reference...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
14.2.20  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @14.2.11    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.19    one month ago

Ya!  The little republican killer in training was walking down the street with his penis substitution/extension and the cops didn't do a damned thing about it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.2.20    one month ago

No talking points here - the actual truth.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.23  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.21    one month ago

He is a fatass in training.

I bet he ends up weighing three or four hundred pounds.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.23    one month ago

A fatass little bitch in training for sure!  Was he on house arrest before?  They would have loved his ass in prison.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
14.2.25  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @14.2.17    one month ago

Irrelevant.   What were they peacefully protesting when they chased him down?

Dumbasses chased down a clearly retreating, armed man and then attacked him.   Had they retreated as well it never would have happened.

They put themselves in harms way by not retreating.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
14.2.26  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @14.2.19    one month ago

He was clearly being chased and attacked...feared for his life

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.27  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.24    one month ago

Did you see the video where he was at another protest and attacked a girl?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.28  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @14.2.26    one month ago

Fear for his life? He was the one with a weapon...

And murdered people...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.29  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @14.2.25    one month ago

Again, we didn't see what happened in the beginning.

No matter how you all try to frame it, he is not innocent.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
14.2.30  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @14.2.27    one month ago

Could you post it? If it really exists.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.31  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.27    one month ago

Yeah, little fatass has already had experience in domestic terrorism.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @14.2.25    one month ago

More ignorant nonsense made up shit.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
14.2.33  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.22    one month ago

Until you provide something to back up your claim, they're talking points.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.34  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @14.2.30    one month ago

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
14.2.35  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @14.2.28    one month ago

He was attacked with a skateboard and the other guy there pulled a gun.

The expert, John Black, spent hours outlining the moments that led to Kyle Rittenhouse’s decisions to shoot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz, offering a preview of the defense team’s strategy when Rittenhouse’s trial begins next month. Black testified that video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and reaching for the teenager’s gun, Huber attacking Rittenhouse with a skateboard and trying to wrestle away his gun, and Grosskreutz running at him with a pistol in his hand.

Perhaps people should explore more than one video point of view.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
14.2.36  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.2.35    one month ago

No matter how many times it is said it will not sink in..

Black testified that video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and reaching for the teenager’s gun, Huber attacking Rittenhouse with a skateboard and trying to wrestle away his gun, and Grosskreutz running at him with a pistol in his hand.
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.37  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.17    one month ago

the video pretty clearly shows him running and tripping , then being assaulted and an attempt to disarm him being made . 

 it also shows him getting into a kneeling position and firing  at the individual whom was struck in the right arm with a handgun in his right hand  , lefty in still images can be seen holding a handgun in his now useless right hand in agony .

 the video then shows him get up and run down the street towards flashing police lights ....where he reported that shots were fired and people had been shot , to which the police left him there to respond to the shootings .

 as has been reported .

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.38  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.37    one month ago

Running away after shooting someone in cold blood.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.39  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.2.35    one month ago

So you are just going to go by what the defense team says...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.40  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.37    one month ago

So you at first say that we did not see what started this then immediately go to he was running for his life....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.41  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.2.35    one month ago

256256

Skateboard wasnt being used as a deadly weapon from angle of attack?

The left hand picture is lefty , the guy shot in the arm , whats that in his right hand?

So much for these innocents being unarmed .......

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.42  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.28    one month ago

he wasnt the only one armed ....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.43  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.42    one month ago

So are you going to act like he was the only one that could have a weapon?

I think I would bring it out to if I saw the kid walking toward me brandishing his...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.44  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.40    one month ago
So you at first say that we did not see what started this then immediately go to he was running for his life....

and just how quickly can a situation change?

 Fact we did not see the first incident , the video picks up with him headed in the direction of the police , he is then mobbed and attacked all from behind , by those also armed , albeit , one with an improvised weapon( idiotic to me ) , but still a deadly weapon as is shown in the still i posted , the other with a hand gun themselves , simply click on the picture and open in a new tab and one can increase the picture size , i found at 150% one can clearly id the handgun in the right hand .

 video shows him continue down the street directly to the officers .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.45  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.43    one month ago
So are you going to act like he was the only one that could have a weapon?

Did I claim that? Nope .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.46  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.44    one month ago

Did he shoot his weapon before? Was he antagonizing people? Was he threatening people?

As you said, we don't know.

He obviously didn't seem scared as he was casually walking away.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
14.2.47  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @14.2.39    one month ago

So what are you "going by"?

I know what  I have seen in several pictures as well as video analyses. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
14.2.48  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @14.2.46    one month ago
He obviously didn't seem scared as he was casually walking away.

No one was chasing him yet. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.49  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.46    one month ago

Using a little critical thinking. he shot his weapon or it was discharged in the first incident , the vid picks up with him headed in the direction of the police , then he is chased , mobbed and attacked from behind , resulting in 2-3 more discharges resulting in one belly shot and dead , and one with an arm wound , all in the direction of the attackers and in the direction he just came from . so the guy shot in the arm was behind him and the kid was not going towards him brandishing as you suppose 

 his jog away(  not a casual stroll or walk )and to the police does appear he was no longer in fear , but then again , after shots fired and people cleared the street , there was no obvious or immenent threat any longer .

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.50  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.12    one month ago

Ya!  He went there hoping to shoot someone and he did.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.51  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.40    one month ago

"So you at first say that we did not see what started this then immediately go to he was running for his life...."

See, I told you that some folks here are just making shit up as they go along 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.52  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @14.2.43    one month ago
"So are you going to act like he was the only one that could have a weapon? I think I would bring it out to if I saw the kid walking toward me brandishing his..."

EXACTLY!  THANK YOU!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.53  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.49    one month ago

Again, you're making shit up as you go along and saying it's 'critical thinking' jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.54  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @14.2.1    one month ago
None of the innocent protesters this little republican killer shot - had any weapons of any kind.  

seems , according to pictures provided, the so called "money shots " , that you are either uninformed or wrong about that conclusion .

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
14.2.55  gooseisback  replied to  Ender @14.2.43    one month ago
kid walking toward me

Well........if he was walking toward you "maybe", but if you were chasing him!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.56  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @14.2.53    one month ago
Again, you're making shit up as you go along and saying it's 'critical thinking'

LMFAO,  at least im not calling him a republican killer in training , or claiming those he shot are innocent and were unarmed when they were and there is photo evidence of it , so ill take your lame and shrill comment  and objections as the pot calling the kettle black .

talk about making shit up to fit what you want , you win the olympic gold medal .... with that and a buck fiddy i would let ya have a cup of coffee.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.57  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.56    one month ago

[Deleted]

He is exactly that a republican killer in training.  

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.58  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @14.2.57    one month ago

sure i am , im only the one that posted the stills showing skateboard dude using his skateboard as an improvised weapon ( still a weapon that can cause death) , or the dude shot in the arm holding a hand gun , refuting your claims of being unarmed, or being agressive or in attack mode , that they were doing NOTHING wrong . .

 i dont give a rip about what their political beliefs are , unlike you .

 seems to me and only an opinion , what seems to be upsetting some , is the fact that there might be more like ritterhouse out there , and people some know or are related to , that participate in such instances and might decide to stretch or bend what they do into criminal actions, might end up facing someone like ritterhouse .

 you could give me a quarter , then ild call someone who cares ......

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.59  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.57    one month ago

It doesn't matter what anyone says.

They are all going to profess his innocents.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.60  Ender  replied to  gooseisback @14.2.55    one month ago

He had to walk to the place he retreated from...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
14.2.61  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @14.2.59    one month ago
It doesn't matter what anyone says. They are all going to profess his innocents.

The irony here... 

You literally made up facts to support your dogmatic belief he must be guilty.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.62  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @14.2.61    one month ago

It is on film. He shot and killed people....

What facts did I make up?

The way I see it, the hypocrisy is oozing.

We know for a fact that if the tables were turned and it was some right wing protest, you all would be screaming bloody murder, so spare me.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
14.2.63  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @14.2.62    one month ago
is on film. He shot and killed people..

No kidding. Do you imagine being on film takes away the right to self defense.

, the hypocrisy is oozing.

Yes, it is from those engage in the "he must be guilty" and I refuse to look at the evidence crowd. It's the same overzealous, emotional obsession and refusal to deal with reality we saw with Nicholas Sandmann. Rather than focus on what actually  happened, we have the disturbing  obsession  with his weight, fantasizing about what will happen to him in prison etc. etc..  . Most of the anti Ritterhouse posts in this thread simply consist of the outright refusal  to deal with the facts that hurt their dogmatic beliefs. .   It's literal denial. The videos are lying. The State of Wisonsin is lying etc.   And of those few  that actually rise above the level of a kindergartner, the consist of false statements (he fired his gun at the crowd before the altercation), or disingenuous comparisons,

I didn't see a single post that deals with the evidence with regards to the law of self defense. Just brain dead denialism and unsupported accusations that are little better (he shot someone so he's guilty). 

e know for a fact that if the tables were turned and it was some right wing protest, you all would be screaming bloody murder, so spare me.

Not at all. But you think that your projection of what others would do somehow justifies you denying reality?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.64  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @14.2.63    one month ago

What reality have I denied?

Point it out or shut up.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
14.2.65  GregTx  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2    one month ago
 so they can be called assailants right?

Absolutely, or it could be argued that they attempted to act as vigilantes.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.66  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.62    one month ago
It is on film. He shot and killed people.... What facts did I make up?

yes it is on film , one in my opinion shows him being attacked, assaulted and defending himself  from one person blugeoning him , and another drawing a firearm on him.

 which is why in my first statement i said he would likely get off for those 2 shootings . like it or not .

 the only question i had was the initial shooting , which more video has been provided showing the one shot was a bit of a hot head unhappy his dumpster fire was extinguished . and it looks like he wasnt going to let some young punk put out another one in the same way .

 will have to wait and see what comes out in actual trial as for testimony about if the assailent that was shot tried to disarm the kid , even though being a convicted felon (which the kid had no idea of ) he was prohibitted from touching or handling ANY firearm for ANY  reason.

 i would suppose that in closing arguments after all this is presented these 3 will be refurred to as assailents , not victims thus taking away the prosecutions idea of painting them as innocent victims , when they had full knowledge of the consequenses of their actions , they just let their testosterone overtake rational thinking and it cost them , one their right arm , and the other 2 their lives for being vigilantes and taking those actions . 

 you didnt make much up , just tried to and failed to set the facts in a light better suited to a conviction , when they actually point to self defense aquittal

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.67  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.66    one month ago

As far as I know, he was not supposed to have a gun either.

You have your view and I have mine.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.68  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.66    one month ago

Sadly I kinda have to agree with you though.

I bet he either gets off or not that bad of a conviction.

How in the hell could he put out a dumpster fire?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.69  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.68    one month ago
How in the hell could he put out a dumpster fire?

in the video sean supplied ,  the first shot of him running by the camera , shows what does look like a fire extinguisher in hand .

 the only one in real question will be the initial incedent , but i think i fleshed that out sufficiently enough for myself to return a self defense verdict if i were on the jury , like i said , glad im not on it .

 so that leaves a misdewiener weapons violation . ( yes , i did that on purpose ) as for the not even suppose to have the gun , a lot of things are suppose to be , but seldom are . fact of life .

 i am left to ask myself at what age and where can a person be considered legally able to be armed and defend themselves , the answer i think is in that gray area we seldom define  acutely.

If it was your kid in your house , what would the answer be ? your kid in the street being mobbed and attacked? same question .

 do i think he made mistakes? he made a crap ton IMHO.

 do i think he responded as any other person would if capable in the same situation? most likely .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.70  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.69    one month ago

Kind of a loaded commentary...

They showed someone that looked and was dressed exactly like the kid.

They can't tell who it was.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
14.2.71  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.69    one month ago

I think he is some idiot kid that listened to the extreme right wing commentary and wanted to act.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14.2.72  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.69    one month ago
 i am left to ask myself at what age and where can a person be considered legally able to be armed and defend themselves , the answer i think is in that gray area we seldom define  acutely.

Are you serious? He wasnt forced into a dangerous situation, he ran into it.  Defend himself? He was walking around the scene with his gun poised in front of him. He thought he was Rambo. He was BLOCKS away from the original location he was guarding. Did someone in authority ask him to go to a second location to quell rioting? I dont think so. He was a vigilante. He brought a gun to a scene of disturbance to intimidate people. 

Otherwise he would have been back at the car dealership he had been guarding.  

They nicest thing you can say about him is that he was a teenager who had delusions of being a hero. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
14.2.73  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.72    one month ago
He wasnt forced into a dangerous situation, he ran into it.  D

Can you please point to your source for your belief that self defense doesn't apply in dangerous situations?

e was walking around the scene with his gun poised in front of him.

So that means he can be attacked and he can't defend himself? 

d someone in authority ask him to go to a second location to quell rioting? I dont think so. 

what does this have to with anything that happened? you think you can attack  someone because they weren't directed to be somewhere by someone in authority? 

The only thing that matters is what happened between the the shooter and the people he shot. And we know the arsonist Rittenhouse  shot was chasing him and trying to take his gun when Rittenhouse shot him. 

Out of curiosity, in your mind, is the arsonist who was setting fires (without being directed to by a person in authority) and who, after screaming racial epithets, chased Rittenhouse and tried to take his gun at fault at all?

It's amazing how none of the progressives don't have any problems with the actions of the arsonist who chased a 17 year old , but hold the  kid responsible for everything. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14.2.74  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @14.2.73    one month ago
He wasnt forced into a dangerous situation, he ran into it.  D
Can you please point to your source for your belief that self defense doesn't apply in dangerous situations?

The first thing I said on this seed is that I dont think he will be convicted , unless there is some evidence not seen yet. 

He's not 'innocent'. He had absolutely no business being there. He's not a cop, he's not a soldier, and he's not Sylvester Stallone.  He left the place he was guarding and went up to "the front lines". 

I hope they can convict him on gun charges because he should be punished. 

The idea that the society should glorify someone this reckless is mind boggling. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.75  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.70    one month ago

admittedly , yes they did show someone similarly dressed and armed, same type of weapon and color shirt. , only difference i noticed was the suspenders on one and not on the kid in other photos  and the kid had a highly visible colored pack i think he called his med kit in other interviews , and the one with the suspenders didnt look like he was out of shape , the kid ..... well round is a shape isnt it?

 the first guy in seans vid of the lead up to the first shooting , showed th guy your thinking of  with suspenders and there seems to have been words between hot head( 1st guy killed) and that guy after his dumpster fire was put out , now did hot head make the same mistake and think the kid was the same guy as well? I dont know but its a possibility .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.76  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.72    one month ago

nice opinion piece John . But it still doesnt answer my question , now does it ?

As I said he made a crapton of mistakes i saw, one of them was even being there , but he was .

 I agree he likely though he was doing something heroic .

wasnt he assigned with another to watch over the very car lot , thats what i read in the reports when it happened , and the only time he was blocks away was when he was going to the police  because thats where they were .

 you say he wasnt an officer or military person so had no authority and deem him a vigilante, i say those that confronted him and attempted to beat him , drew a weapon on him and tried to disarm him had no authority either and they attempted to use strong arm tactics to enforce their own vigilanteism . none of the 3 acted within the law or with authority to do so .

 the smartest one was the person filming the whole thing in the run to the cops that pointed him out and simply let him go to the cops . that person was no threat or inpeadment to getting to the cops .

 now skater dude and the BLM medic , can also be said to have had delusions of granduer , with their actions of assault and brandishing a firearm themselves , outside the limits of the law . they all paid for their misbeliefs .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14.2.77  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @14.2.76    one month ago

I am pretty sure that the car dealership he was originally guarding was "blocks away" from the scene where the first shooting took place. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
14.2.78  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.77    one month ago

Perhaps, but everything took place along Sheridan Road.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.79  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @14.2.77    one month ago

well that will come out in trial since the first shooting took place in a car dealership and the police were blocks away where the "action " was  and he had to go to them .

 Besides , who is to say , the "action " didnt come to him? its not like the protesters were confined to any one place or area .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.2.80  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @14.2.71    one month ago

could be more than a grain of truth to him listening to someone , but one would have to also consider what he felt was right or wrong , and for that is to delve into the human belief systems .

My opinion , or view ? teens that age are not quite adults , and not quite children anymore , and are always looking for some form of acceptance in the community they live in .

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
14.2.81  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.38    one month ago

To the police? WTF. He did the correct thing reporting to the police! Or do you think he just should have stayed there and let more rioters have a go at him?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14.2.82  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @14.2.81    one month ago

I believe he called a friend after the first shooting, not the police. He told his friend "I killed someone" . 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.83  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.5    4 weeks ago

He doesn't know.  He and Mark just make stuff up as they go along.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15  Ender    one month ago
@SubPixl
·
Oct 23
#AlecForPrison is trending and it makes me laugh because the same people who want him in jail are the same ones who think this man should be walking free. Not only is it hypocrisy, but it's just showing how stupid you all really are
512
 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
15.1  gooseisback  replied to  Ender @15    one month ago
is trending and it makes me laugh because the same people who want him in jail are the same ones who think this man should be walking free. Not only is it hypocrisy, but it's just showing how stupid you all really are

Must have missed the part where Halyna Hutchins was attacking Alex Baldwin. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.1  Ender  replied to  gooseisback @15.1    one month ago

You must have missed where people were calling for his arrest....

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
15.1.2  gooseisback  replied to  Ender @15.1.1    one month ago
You must have missed where people were calling for his arrest...

I can see why:

Involuntary Manslaughter

The   act   of   unlawfully   killing   another   human   being   unintentionally.

Most   unintentional   killings   are   not   murder   but   involuntary   manslaughter.   The   absence   of   the   element   of   intent   is   the   key   distinguishing   factor   between   voluntary   and   involuntary   manslaughter.   In   most   states   involuntary   manslaughter   results   from   an   improper   use   of   reasonable   care   or   skill   while   performing   a   legal   act,   or   while   committing   an   act   that   is   unlawful   but   not   felonious.

Involuntary Manslaughter legal definition of Involuntary Manslaughter (thefreedictionary.com)

Had you or I done the same to say... your neighbor, we probably would have been charged.  There is no exclusion in the law for actors that I am aware of.  

Here's a question that we'll never know the answer, do you think Baldwin would have put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger without checking the chamber?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.3  Ender  replied to  gooseisback @15.1.2    one month ago

So we would be filming a movie at home?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
15.1.4  gooseisback  replied to  Ender @15.1.3    one month ago
So we would be filming a movie at home?

and that has to do with what?. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.5  Ender  replied to  gooseisback @15.1.4    one month ago

Like maybe a prop master handing someone else the gun?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
15.1.6  gooseisback  replied to  Ender @15.1.5    one month ago
prop master handing someone else the gun

Did the prop master aim and pull the trigger?  He violated two of the most critical rules of firearms safety, assume all guns are loaded and never point a gun at someone you don't intend to shoot. You can say this person did this and this person did that and its a prop gun and blah blah blah blah.  Do you think Alex Baldwin will EVER shoot another gun without checking the chamber. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.7  Ender  replied to  gooseisback @15.1.6    one month ago

I think he is a jackass and probably never held a gun.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
15.1.8  gooseisback  replied to  Ender @15.1.7    one month ago
I think he is a jackass and probably never held a gun.

Well, I have to agree with you there.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  gooseisback @15.1.2    one month ago
In   most   states   involuntary   manslaughter   results   from   an   improper   use   of   reasonable   care   or   skill   while   performing   a   legal   act,  

Good luck proving Baldwin committed "improper use of reasonable care". He is not even under investigation. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
15.1.10  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.9    one month ago
He is not even under investigation. 

You know this how?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @15.1.10    one month ago

I'm literate. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
15.1.12  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.11    one month ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
15.1.13  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @15.1.7    one month ago

oh , he has , in the hunt for red october  for 1 i know of .

i think the real hidden issue is as outspoken and critical as he has been in the past about gun control or the use of guns , or the use of guns by police  for him to ignore at least 3 firearms safety tenets ,  strike others as ironic . and almost hypocritical, to me its just ironic but not hypocritical. And its that to me because once one becomes lax as to safety , the irony is thats when accidents tend to happen .

1 alawys check the chamber of the gun no matter what someone tells you yourself  to be sure.

2 always assume until you verify it yourself , that a gun handed to you or you pick up is loaded and treat it as such.

3 never point a gun in any direction or at any one or anything you do not intend to shoot .

 lastly , if he had taken just one gun safety class at anytime in the past or handled or shot a gun , those 3 things would be ingrained , and someone might not be dead if he followed them .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.14  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @15.1.13    one month ago

I learned real quick to never point at anyone.

I have heard stories about people that think the gun is empty and go to clean it and it fires.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
15.1.15  MonsterMash  replied to  Ender @15.1.14    one month ago
I have heard stories about people that think the gun is empty and go to clean it and it fires.

My dad shot himself in the thigh while cleaning on of his "unloaded" pistols.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.16  Ender  replied to  MonsterMash @15.1.15    one month ago

Ouch.

The worst I have done was as a kid shot myself in the bare foot with a bb gun.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
15.1.17  Kathleen  replied to  MonsterMash @15.1.15    one month ago

My father accidentally shot a hole in the freezer in the basement. My mom yelled out to him and he didn’t answer at first. Then after she called him the second time he answered. She is mad at him for not answering the first time. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.9    one month ago
Good luck proving Baldwin committed "improper use of reasonable care".

So you think it is reasonable for someone to be handed a gun, not check to see if it is loaded, point it at another human being, and shoot the human?

Wow.............'nuff said.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @15.1.18    one month ago

Are you capable of forming a comment without asking a question that has already been answered?

Just give your opinion. I'm not interested in your constant questions. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.19    one month ago

I am amazed that anyone would think what Baldwin did was fine.

Of course, I have been around a gun before and always treat every one of them as if it was loaded until I personally check it.

Gun safety 101.

I think whoever was the freaking idiot who brought live ammo to a movie set was an idiot and responsible.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
15.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @15.1.18    one month ago

It is not unusual that a person who is not a shooter, would break virtually all the laws of safe gun handling.

I do blame whoever was responsible for safe handling of the weapons on that set.   In hollywood these actor tools are just handed a gun and told what to do and they do it.   Many of them don't know the first thing about safe gun handling or gun safety.

Not many Tom Sellecks or Chuck Norris's in Hollywood anymore

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
15.1.22  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @15.1.21    one month ago

If there are , they are quiet about it .

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
15.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @15.1.22    one month ago

Yep, the loons are running that loony-bin that's for sure.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
15.1.24  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.9    one month ago
Baldwin committed "improper use of reasonable care"

John, "reasonable" would be check the gun to see if its loaded, "reasonable" would be not point it at a person. Don't tell me about "reasonable" because, it didn't come in to play. It was an accident, it was unintentional.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16  Kathleen    one month ago

I have no sympathy for rioters and looters and  arsonists. They decided to go out and cause destruction and harm or to kill someone. They are NOT protesters, they are criminals and I am glad they are being called as such.  I am sick and tired of them downplaying these acts. I am sure some of you would not want your business, house and property looted and burned down. If you intend to cause trouble..... then expect to suffer the consequences right back!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
16.1  Ender  replied to  Kathleen @16    one month ago

Vigilante justice...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @16.1    one month ago

Yup, they're all for it.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  Ender @16.1    one month ago

Then you just admitted the rioters, looters and arsonists were in the wrong.  You think he took the matter into his own hands, for which he probably did. Perhaps he was defending himself, that should be brought out in court.  In certain situations you may not have a choice. I would like to see what some of you would do in these types of situations. I am waiting to see what they say in court.

I do see a lot of sympathy for the looters, rioters and arsonists here.  That is plain disgusting. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.2    one month ago

Nope - any one who was looting or setting fires - are criminals - not protesters.  

Kyle is a scumbag republican killer in training.  

You see things that are non-existent - like your fellow alleged conservative pals.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  Tessylo @16.1.3    one month ago

You make claims you can’t back up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.4    one month ago

No I don't dear.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
16.1.6  Ender  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.2    one month ago

I don't see sympathy for anyone here.

Did you see the court case where a proud boys member admitted in court he started a fire and broke windows because they wanted a race war?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @16.1.6    one month ago

So I've been correct all along when I've pointed out that the majority of violence at largely peaceful protests has been carried out by the right/instigators/agitators/domestic terrorists.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  Ender @16.1.6    one month ago

Is that in all of the circumstances when it comes to rioters, looting and arsonists? If it is just that one instance then it does not make up for all the other instances.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
16.1.9  Ender  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.8    one month ago

I was just pointing out you all are quick to blame protestors when that was not always the case.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
16.1.10  Sunshine  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.2    one month ago
I do see a lot of sympathy for the looters, rioters and arsonists here.  That is plain disgusting.

They are just peaceful protesters....is the talking point.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.1.11  Kathleen  replied to  Ender @16.1.9    one month ago

I am not blaming the protesters, I am blaming the rioters.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.1.12  Kathleen  replied to  Sunshine @16.1.10    one month ago

I know. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @16.1.6    one month ago

They sure have sympathy for this cold blooded right wing domestic terrorist - not the innocent protesters.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
16.1.14  Ender  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.11    one month ago

So you admit that there were different people there with different agendas, then turn right around and agree with sunshine that they are all bad....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @16.1.14    one month ago

Inconsistent aren't they?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.2    one month ago
In certain situations you may not have a choice.

He had the choice to remain in Illinois and not bring a loaded gun to a protest/riot. 

He's NOBODY. He's not law enforcement. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @16.1.16    one month ago
He had the choice to remain in Illinois and not bring a loaded gun to a protest/riot. 

This is America. He also had a choice to go there if he wished.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.1.18  Kathleen  replied to  Ender @16.1.14    one month ago

In this case, I believed they were not there to protest innocently. It looked chaotic it looked different then a peaceful protest. To me it did. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.1.19  Kathleen  replied to  Tessylo @16.1.13    one month ago

You sure have sympathy for the rioters, looters and arsonists that are criminals.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
16.1.20  gooseisback  replied to  Ender @16.1    one month ago
Vigilante justice...

What do you think the rioters and arsonists are doing? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.19    one month ago

You have that ass backwards dear.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
16.1.22  Ender  replied to  gooseisback @16.1.20    one month ago

So you think it justifies an out of town kid shooting people....

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
16.1.23  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @16.1.17    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
16.1.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @16.1.4    one month ago

Routinely.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
16.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @16.1.16    one month ago
He had the choice to remain in Illinois and not bring a loaded gun to a protest/riot. 

He absolutely had that choice.  That absolutely would have been the correct choice.

He's a young idiot that went looking for serious trouble, and to nobody's surprise, found it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @16    one month ago

The protesters weren't there to harm or kill anyone - that's what this republican in training scumbag killer was there for - to shoot someone.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @16.2    one month ago

I think many here conflate protestor with looter/rioter. They can't believe they are different kinds of people

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.1    one month ago

Yeah, I get tired of that 'comparison' I guess you could call it.  If someone is rioting, looting, or setting 'shit on fire' - then they are criminals, not protesters.  

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
16.2.3  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.1    one month ago

I think many here conflate protestor with looter/rioter. They can't believe they are different kinds of people

I think that depends on the color of the skin of the person.  Some people still claim those that besieged the Capitol building were tourists.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.4  Kathleen  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.1    one month ago

I don’t, a protester has the right to protest and I have no issues with them.  A rioter, looter and arsonist is a criminal, they are two different things.

I was referring to the criminals that loot and riot and set fires to the property of innocent people.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
16.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.1    one month ago

So, what were the people peacefully protesting as they chased down a retreating Rittenhouse and beat on him?

Nah, there is no confusion in that case.   None at all.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
16.2.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.1    one month ago

When it comes to Antifa or BLM, they generally are the same people

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.7  Kathleen  replied to  Veronica @16.2.3    one month ago

You are speaking for others but certainly not me. I have always said all along that what happened at the Capital was very wrong. Also, I don’t judge people by their  skin color. Then again, it’s not good to speak for others.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.8  Kathleen  replied to  Sparty On @16.2.5    one month ago

They were not ‘peaceful protesters’ then. That’s for sure. They crossed the line.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.2.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.4    one month ago

I have rarely seen you defend actual protestors but you are quick to call rioters criminals (which they are), so don't play the innocent with me

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.7    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @16.2.5    one month ago

They were chasing down this right wing domestic terrorist killer who just shot someone in cold blood.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.12  Kathleen  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.9    one month ago

There is nothing to ‘play innocent’ for. 

Then you must have missed it then, because I never had a problem with protesters as long as that is all they are doing. I did say at one time it was not right for them to block traffic. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.13  Kathleen  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.10    one month ago

No Trout, I am not. That is not right to accuse me of that.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.2.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.13    one month ago

it's true

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
16.2.15  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.11    one month ago

The fact that you are trying to justify one sides actions in this case and not the other, speaks volumes to those of us that are thinking people.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
16.2.16  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.14    one month ago
it's true

Opinions do vary ...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.2.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.4    one month ago

The article is about Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two people. 

What business of it was his to go into that location armed with an AR-15 rifle?  Was he a cop?  National Guard ? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.14    one month ago

Yes, it is!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @16.2.15    one month ago
"to those of us that are thinking people"
jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.20  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.17    one month ago

That’s up to the seeder to determine. 

I think post 5.2.13 gives you some explanation. Let’s see if the jury says it’s self defense. 

Then again, you can say what business did the rioters and looters and arsonists have doing what they are doing..... 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
16.2.21  Sparty On  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.20    one month ago

Exactly, knives do have a tendency to cut both ways don't they?

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
16.2.22  Sunshine  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.20    one month ago
Then again, you can say what business did the rioters and looters and arsonists have doing what they are doing....

They where the ones looking for trouble...lighting dumpsters on fire, chasing people down and attacking them.

Well they found their trouble they where seeking.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.23  Kathleen  replied to  Sunshine @16.2.22    one month ago

Indeed. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.24  Kathleen  replied to  Sparty On @16.2.16    one month ago

If you notice, that stays.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.1    one month ago
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
16.2.26  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.1    one month ago
I think many here conflate protestor with looter/rioter. They can't believe they are different kinds of people

Don't mistake equal measures of disdain for both as failure to differentiate.

I may have more respect for the looters.  At least they know what they want and actually accomplish something.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
16.2.27  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.17    one month ago
What business of it was his to go into that location

So only the rioters and looters were allowed...got it.