• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,934
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Don, what does its location have to do with anything?

Conservatives are saying he worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He didn't. I found a report that also says he worked as a lifeguard at another place, closer to Kenosha since I posted that. I am not sure he even was there due to the pandemic...it is documented that it affected the YMCA job. In both cases of lifeguard jobs, he wasn't an EMT. And also, neither was in Kenosha, though the second less documented one is quite a bit closer to Kenosha. Still not there.
This article says the YMCA confirmed he worked there and was furloughed March 2020. Doesn't say what he did there. He claims to be a Certified Lifeguard which means CPR and what not. I haven't seen that debunked... yet.

He claims he was a EMT Cadet for the Antioch FD.
So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
And what about Mom-the-accessory?
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,676
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Don, what does its location have to do with anything?

Conservatives are saying he worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He didn't. I found a report that also says he worked as a lifeguard at another place, closer to Kenosha since I posted that.

He worked at a pool in Pleasant Prairie In Kenosha County, less than 10 mi. from the shooting location.

Yes. That does not make him a member of the Kenosha community, though.

He worked there the day before the shooting. He was staying at his friend's house in WI on the day of the shooting. That house in WI is where his gun had always been kept, not in IL.

And most likely he stayed there because of his reasons to be involved in the things he was doing, rather than that it was a coincidence he stayed there with a friend who purchased a gun for no reason. This doesn't give anyone free interpretation to say he was an EMT who was a member of the Kenosha community.

His home was in Antioch, IL which is near the border of WI, and just 20 mi. from Kenosha. This whole "he crossed state lines" line was always a dumb canard, and people are still saying it.

I am not saying that. His residence was definitely Antioch, IL, 21 miles away. I would not claim I was a member of a community that is 21 miles from my home. There are many such places and many even closer. I would not claim I was a member of any of those communities because it would be stretching the meaning of words to suit an agenda.

I am not sure he even was there due to the pandemic...it is documented that it affected the YMCA job. In both cases of lifeguard jobs, he wasn't an EMT.

Whether he was an EMT isn't a mystery. He admitted in court that he had lied about it.

Yes, indeed. He isn't honest.

And also, neither was in Kenosha, though the second less documented one is quite a bit closer to Kenosha. Still not there.

I mean, I live in a location. I work in another location. I have family and especially in-laws in other locations, some of which are neighboring towns and some of which are further out, some of my biologically related family is in another state and in other countries. I don't claim I am a member of the community where I work and I certainly wouldn't claim I am a member of a community that is 7 miles away. I also wouldn't claim I am a member of a community of a town that is neighboring to my "town," merely because I have relatives there.

To try to make some kind of analogy here: If I was a dishwasher in Brooklyn, I wouldn't claim to be a restaurant owner in Westchester county.

He did say it was his community. Maybe it's a SLIGHT stretch for him to say it, but it's probably not worth much thought compared to other issues.

It's a stretch to suit a narrative. He is trying to say he was just there because it's his community, but it isn't. There's a video of him implying he wants to shoot people. He was using semantic deception to not give the prosecutor any leeway in uncovering his motivation for being there.

I realize it isn't the greatest point and that's why I just posted a photo and left it at that, but now people want to engage in argument over a lesser point and even pretend I am saying something I am not because conservative humor is punching down and making up stuff. No, not you--thebeave.

This isn't complicated. Think about yourself. Would you claim your community was 21 miles away from your residence, even if you worked part-time and got layed off from a job 7 miles from there? I wouldn't. I mean, I work 33 miles from my home and there's a city some 10 miles from there. I had family there at one point residing in the city. If I claimed I was a member of the community, it would feel like a giant lie. Wouldn't it for you, too?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,627
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.
Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.
Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.
What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,447
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I agree with you on both counts. While I am very unsure he is deserving of self-defense, there are enough people out there who are going to support him over that. I have not been focusing on calling him a murderer, even though one poster here is screaming that I want him to be mega super guilty and that I am clutching pearls. Instead, I am showing KR isn't honest, KR's motivations were not 100% pure, and he was reckless. To the extent he was reckless and devalued human life, regardless of his personal hero narrative, he is undeserving of self-defense claims. That means, I deduce he ought not have a self-defense defense for particular criminal charges related to recklessness and the devaluation of human life...but that other charges unrelated to recklessness and unrelated to devaluation of human life may have a self-defense defense or may not be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I agree it's quite likely he will get off on some of the charges. Juries cannot be punished for not following the law. But that doesn't change the law. And the law is as I had stated it above.
But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.
That's why KR was charged as he was.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,725
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So for you, arming 17-year old racists — Rittenhouse is a Proud Boys wannabe — with assault weapons and having them assist police is part of the solution?

I think you pointed to the heart of the problem. He's a Proud Boy wannabe--and using Proud Boy tactics. Illegal violence. Oops--someone didn't just take it and now he's under threat but with unclean hands. Improper self defense.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,142
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
This is a prosecution attorney showing the judge the place in a video which they say shows KR pointing his gun at Ziminski. I couldn't see it on my screen. They want to blow up a still of the image for the jury, and were arguing whether it should be allowed. The in-the-tank judge allowed it.

rittenhouse back and to the left2b.jpg

"Back and to the left."
 
Last edited:

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
I don't think that's entirely true. Your rights drop considerably while you are doing criminal activity.

Criminal activity like setting fires or attacking a child*?

* If 17 year old Trayvon is always referred to as a "child" on here, why not 17 year old Kyle?
Strange how you reverse your stance when the "child" is white.
One boy was illegally armed and out looking for trouble. The other boy was black.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

A video of him has been posted where he was observing people (possibly looters and others) coming out of a CVS in which he said he wished he had his gun. In other words, implying he was willing to shoot people at large who,
No. It does not imply that. It is consistent with that but it is also consistent with many other scenarios, like "they would get a fright from seeing the gun and maybe rethink their actions" or not as any kind of threat at all, like when a sitcom character says "the things you see when you haven't got a gun".
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
226
Location
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
Basic Beliefs
logic, experience, independence
He said he did tell them, but they told him to get out of there.



So that was over trying to introduce this evidence, which he had not allowed.


Binger says should be because KR testified he knows you can't use deadly force to protect property and also testified about what he said to yellow pants guy that night. That guy had said to him in a video that KR had pointed his gun at him for sitting on a car. And KR testified he replied to him "I did" but he testified he was being sarcastic (a blatant lie).

So he started to introduce that earlier incident, "you had previously indicated you wished you had your AR 15 to protect someone's property, correct." And the judge was not having it.

Justified Fate of Jungle Savages

People who have no respect for property deserve to become property.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
226
Location
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
Basic Beliefs
logic, experience, independence
It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country.

No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something.

If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name
Thughuggers Commit Capital Treason

A riot is a state of war. Every citizen has an obligation to use his gun to kill the rioters. They are the enemy; merely arresting them would just encourage more riots. Also, during wartime regulations about illegal possession of weapons are waived.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,809
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.
Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.
Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.
What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?
No. It’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense. You don’t become fair game for attack unless you have put someone in imminent peril yourself. What happened a minute prior to the shooting may even not be relevant. if someone with a gun is backing away from a conflict, and hasn't used some kind of unjustified deadly force, you cannot attack him And doing so could allow him to claim self defense.

These are technical legal issues. Others have said that he pointed the gun at Mr. Ziminski, and that MIGHT hurt his claim, but the problem is that he took no further action to indicate violence. He tried to leave the area, about the only smart thing he did, and Rosenbaum came after him. Once he does that Rosenbaum’s actions were not self defense or a defense of others. If at that point Rosenbaum initiates the attack, Rittenhouse can defend himself. Recall also that Ziminski fired off a round a few seconds before (and admitted it). According to Rittenhouse, ZimI ski told Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. I’m sure Ziminski will dispute that. But earlier Rosenbaum had apparently made threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier.

Even prosecution witnesses agreed that Rittenhouse was backing away, saying friendly, friendly. The prosecution is arguing that Rosenbaum didn’t have the means to carry out the threat because he was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified though that he grabbed the gun. The video I saw was unclear about that but the pathologist said he was shot at close range. What’s undeniable from the video though is that Rittenhouse was indeed running away from Rosenbaum. At that point he is not the aggressor. That is a HUGE issue when it comes to self defense. Even if he was initially the aggressor before that, the very fact that he backs away shows he is no longer a threat and Rosenbaum should’ve walked away too. That is basically self defense law 101. He will get off.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
226
Location
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
Basic Beliefs
logic, experience, independence
So, he'll walk.
And like every teen that gets away with shit, he'll begin to believe he's untouchable.
He'll go on to start taking pot shots at demonstrations, Democrat campaign busses, or some such.
Until his next crime is so egregious even Trump as the Judge couldn't get him off.
Statists' Senseless Static

And off we go into the wild blue-state yonder.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
226
Location
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
Basic Beliefs
logic, experience, independence
Rittenhouse isn't the problem. Or should I say he isn't the main problem.

How many cunts who should never be near a loaded gun are going to see the OAN/Newsmax translation of this case, become inspired and go out to emulate Rittenhouse? Except because they are cunts, they are going to do it juuussst a little "better"?

I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way, I think we are going to see a number of these yahoos wading into protests with their strap on AR 15s so they can hunt "antifas". Given that it appears to me that the judge is acting as a part of the defense team, I see very little chance of Rittenhouse being held accountable.
We Don't Need More Prisons; We Need More Morgues

That's exactly what patriots should do to our anti-American enemies. That would send the only effective message to the ruling class that empowered these ferals and feralphiles.
 

none

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
Rittenhouse isn't the problem. Or should I say he isn't the main problem.

How many cunts who should never be near a loaded gun are going to see the OAN/Newsmax translation of this case, become inspired and go out to emulate Rittenhouse? Except because they are cunts, they are going to do it juuussst a little "better"?

I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way, I think we are going to see a number of these yahoos wading into protests with their strap on AR 15s so they can hunt "antifas". Given that it appears to me that the judge is acting as a part of the defense team, I see very little chance of Rittenhouse being held accountable.
We Don't Need More Prisons; We Need More Morgues

That's exactly what patriots should do to our anti-American enemies. That would send the only effective message to the ruling class that empowered these ferals and feralphiles.
hehehe... dude ever witness the B1 flying wing maiden flight overhead??? hehehe... "carpet bomb" lol
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,447
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country.

No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something.

If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name
Thughuggers Commit Capital Treason

A riot is a state of war. Every citizen has an obligation to use his gun to kill the rioters. They are the enemy; merely arresting them would just encourage more riots. Also, during wartime regulations about illegal possession of weapons are waived.
Where do I find this in the law?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,447
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Rittenhouse isn't the problem. Or should I say he isn't the main problem.

How many cunts who should never be near a loaded gun are going to see the OAN/Newsmax translation of this case, become inspired and go out to emulate Rittenhouse? Except because they are cunts, they are going to do it juuussst a little "better"?

I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way, I think we are going to see a number of these yahoos wading into protests with their strap on AR 15s so they can hunt "antifas". Given that it appears to me that the judge is acting as a part of the defense team, I see very little chance of Rittenhouse being held accountable.
We Don't Need More Prisons; We Need More Morgues

That's exactly what patriots should do to our anti-American enemies. That would send the only effective message to the ruling class that empowered these ferals and feralphiles.
Patriots? Ha! You make me laugh. When right-wing assholes refuse to get a little shot and wear a simple mask to help country they are far from patriotic.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,627
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.
Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.
Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.
What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?
No. It’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense. You don’t become fair game for attack unless you have put someone in imminent peril yourself. What happened a minute prior to the shooting may even not be relevant. if someone with a gun is backing away from a conflict, and hasn't used some kind of unjustified deadly force, you cannot attack him And doing so could allow him to claim self defense.

These are technical legal issues. Others have said that he pointed the gun at Mr. Ziminski, and that MIGHT hurt his claim, but the problem is that he took no further action to indicate violence. He tried to leave the area, about the only smart thing he did, and Rosenbaum came after him. Once he does that Rosenbaum’s actions were not self defense or a defense of others. If at that point Rosenbaum initiates the attack, Rittenhouse can defend himself. Recall also that Ziminski fired off a round a few seconds before (and admitted it). According to Rittenhouse, ZimI ski told Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. I’m sure Ziminski will dispute that. But earlier Rosenbaum had apparently made threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier.

Even prosecution witnesses agreed that Rittenhouse was backing away, saying friendly, friendly. The prosecution is arguing that Rosenbaum didn’t have the means to carry out the threat because he was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified though that he grabbed the gun. The video I saw was unclear about that but the pathologist said he was shot at close range. What’s undeniable from the video though is that Rittenhouse was indeed running away from Rosenbaum. At that point he is not the aggressor. That is a HUGE issue when it comes to self defense. Even if he was initially the aggressor before that, the very fact that he backs away shows he is no longer a threat and Rosenbaum should’ve walked away too. That is basically self defense law 101. He will get off.
I would argue that a person too young to legally carry a semiautomatic weapon into a crowded demonstration DID put a lot of people in immediate danger. Anyone could have grabbed that weapon away from that kid and started shooting. I would argue that Rittenhouse DID indeed go to that demonstration intending to shoot ‘bad guys.’

I would further argue that the men who pursued Rittenhouse were acting in the same good faith that supposedly Rittenhouse was acting under: they were chasing someone sought by police, who had just killed an unarmed man.

I don’t agree that the first shooting was justified. But if you think Rittenhouse was justified in the first instance, you certainly should understand the actions of the second and third man: they were trying to apprehend a under suspect—which, I believe, was Rittenhouse’s wet dream.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,809
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.
Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.
Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.
What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?
No. It’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense. You don’t become fair game for attack unless you have put someone in imminent peril yourself. What happened a minute prior to the shooting may even not be relevant. if someone with a gun is backing away from a conflict, and hasn't used some kind of unjustified deadly force, you cannot attack him And doing so could allow him to claim self defense.

These are technical legal issues. Others have said that he pointed the gun at Mr. Ziminski, and that MIGHT hurt his claim, but the problem is that he took no further action to indicate violence. He tried to leave the area, about the only smart thing he did, and Rosenbaum came after him. Once he does that Rosenbaum’s actions were not self defense or a defense of others. If at that point Rosenbaum initiates the attack, Rittenhouse can defend himself. Recall also that Ziminski fired off a round a few seconds before (and admitted it). According to Rittenhouse, ZimI ski told Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. I’m sure Ziminski will dispute that. But earlier Rosenbaum had apparently made threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier.

Even prosecution witnesses agreed that Rittenhouse was backing away, saying friendly, friendly. The prosecution is arguing that Rosenbaum didn’t have the means to carry out the threat because he was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified though that he grabbed the gun. The video I saw was unclear about that but the pathologist said he was shot at close range. What’s undeniable from the video though is that Rittenhouse was indeed running away from Rosenbaum. At that point he is not the aggressor. That is a HUGE issue when it comes to self defense. Even if he was initially the aggressor before that, the very fact that he backs away shows he is no longer a threat and Rosenbaum should’ve walked away too. That is basically self defense law 101. He will get off.
I would argue that a person too young to legally carry a semiautomatic weapon into a crowded demonstration DID put a lot of people in immediate danger. Anyone could have grabbed that weapon away from that kid and started shooting. I would argue that Rittenhouse DID indeed go to that demonstration intending to shoot ‘bad guys.’

I would further argue that the men who pursued Rittenhouse were acting in the same good faith that supposedly Rittenhouse was acting under: they were chasing someone sought by police, who had just killed an unarmed man.

I don’t agree that the first shooting was justified. But if you think Rittenhouse was justified in the first instance, you certainly should understand the actions of the second and third man: they were trying to apprehend a under suspect—which, I believe, was Rittenhouse’s wet dream.
I’m sorry, but that’s not the law of self defense. Here’s a pretty good legal explanation: https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-1/

As an aside, I see the judge has just ruled out Lesser included offenses. That’s a bad sign for the prosecution. They probably knew they were over reaching with murder. It will be up to the jurors now, but I think the instructions will be clear that they will acquit.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Rittenhouse isn't the problem. Or should I say he isn't the main problem.

How many cunts who should never be near a loaded gun are going to see the OAN/Newsmax translation of this case, become inspired and go out to emulate Rittenhouse? Except because they are cunts, they are going to do it juuussst a little "better"?

I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way, I think we are going to see a number of these yahoos wading into protests with their strap on AR 15s so they can hunt "antifas". Given that it appears to me that the judge is acting as a part of the defense team, I see very little chance of Rittenhouse being held accountable.
We Don't Need More Prisons; We Need More Morgues

That's exactly what patriots should do to our anti-American enemies. That would send the only effective message to the ruling class that empowered these ferals and feralphiles.

No, real patriots understand that there is nothing more patriotic than the right to protest.

Fake patriots wave their ARs around like dicks, and go to protests to shoot people. Talk about your "ferals", those you would label "patriots" are the most in need of domestication.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,627
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.
Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.
Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.
What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?
No. It’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense. You don’t become fair game for attack unless you have put someone in imminent peril yourself. What happened a minute prior to the shooting may even not be relevant. if someone with a gun is backing away from a conflict, and hasn't used some kind of unjustified deadly force, you cannot attack him And doing so could allow him to claim self defense.

These are technical legal issues. Others have said that he pointed the gun at Mr. Ziminski, and that MIGHT hurt his claim, but the problem is that he took no further action to indicate violence. He tried to leave the area, about the only smart thing he did, and Rosenbaum came after him. Once he does that Rosenbaum’s actions were not self defense or a defense of others. If at that point Rosenbaum initiates the attack, Rittenhouse can defend himself. Recall also that Ziminski fired off a round a few seconds before (and admitted it). According to Rittenhouse, ZimI ski told Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. I’m sure Ziminski will dispute that. But earlier Rosenbaum had apparently made threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier.

Even prosecution witnesses agreed that Rittenhouse was backing away, saying friendly, friendly. The prosecution is arguing that Rosenbaum didn’t have the means to carry out the threat because he was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified though that he grabbed the gun. The video I saw was unclear about that but the pathologist said he was shot at close range. What’s undeniable from the video though is that Rittenhouse was indeed running away from Rosenbaum. At that point he is not the aggressor. That is a HUGE issue when it comes to self defense. Even if he was initially the aggressor before that, the very fact that he backs away shows he is no longer a threat and Rosenbaum should’ve walked away too. That is basically self defense law 101. He will get off.
I would argue that a person too young to legally carry a semiautomatic weapon into a crowded demonstration DID put a lot of people in immediate danger. Anyone could have grabbed that weapon away from that kid and started shooting. I would argue that Rittenhouse DID indeed go to that demonstration intending to shoot ‘bad guys.’

I would further argue that the men who pursued Rittenhouse were acting in the same good faith that supposedly Rittenhouse was acting under: they were chasing someone sought by police, who had just killed an unarmed man.

I don’t agree that the first shooting was justified. But if you think Rittenhouse was justified in the first instance, you certainly should understand the actions of the second and third man: they were trying to apprehend a under suspect—which, I believe, was Rittenhouse’s wet dream.
I’m sorry, but that’s not the law of self defense. Here’s a pretty good legal explanation: https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-1/

As an aside, I see the judge has just ruled out Lesser included offenses. That’s a bad sign for the prosecution. They probably knew they were over reaching with murder. It will be up to the jurors now, but I think the instructions will be clear that they will acquit.
Here’s the actual Wisconsin statute:

 

none

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
Not only are Leftist sick sadistically, but they also have a secret desire to be raped by some sweaty career-criminal thug.
I also hear they eat puppies and put pineapple on pizza.
nope, sorry... the fear is the leftists are men, and the boys that the conservatives sacrifice for thier benefit are going to live to tell the tale... pronouns... those useless things....
 

none

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.
Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.
Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.
What about illegally carrying a semi-automatic weapon?
No. It’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense. You don’t become fair game for attack unless you have put someone in imminent peril yourself. What happened a minute prior to the shooting may even not be relevant. if someone with a gun is backing away from a conflict, and hasn't used some kind of unjustified deadly force, you cannot attack him And doing so could allow him to claim self defense.

These are technical legal issues. Others have said that he pointed the gun at Mr. Ziminski, and that MIGHT hurt his claim, but the problem is that he took no further action to indicate violence. He tried to leave the area, about the only smart thing he did, and Rosenbaum came after him. Once he does that Rosenbaum’s actions were not self defense or a defense of others. If at that point Rosenbaum initiates the attack, Rittenhouse can defend himself. Recall also that Ziminski fired off a round a few seconds before (and admitted it). According to Rittenhouse, ZimI ski told Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. I’m sure Ziminski will dispute that. But earlier Rosenbaum had apparently made threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier.

Even prosecution witnesses agreed that Rittenhouse was backing away, saying friendly, friendly. The prosecution is arguing that Rosenbaum didn’t have the means to carry out the threat because he was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified though that he grabbed the gun. The video I saw was unclear about that but the pathologist said he was shot at close range. What’s undeniable from the video though is that Rittenhouse was indeed running away from Rosenbaum. At that point he is not the aggressor. That is a HUGE issue when it comes to self defense. Even if he was initially the aggressor before that, the very fact that he backs away shows he is no longer a threat and Rosenbaum should’ve walked away too. That is basically self defense law 101. He will get off.
I would argue that a person too young to legally carry a semiautomatic weapon into a crowded demonstration DID put a lot of people in immediate danger. Anyone could have grabbed that weapon away from that kid and started shooting. I would argue that Rittenhouse DID indeed go to that demonstration intending to shoot ‘bad guys.’

I would further argue that the men who pursued Rittenhouse were acting in the same good faith that supposedly Rittenhouse was acting under: they were chasing someone sought by police, who had just killed an unarmed man.

I don’t agree that the first shooting was justified. But if you think Rittenhouse was justified in the first instance, you certainly should understand the actions of the second and third man: they were trying to apprehend a under suspect—which, I believe, was Rittenhouse’s wet dream.
I’m sorry, but that’s not the law of self defense. Here’s a pretty good legal explanation: https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-1/

As an aside, I see the judge has just ruled out Lesser included offenses. That’s a bad sign for the prosecution. They probably knew they were over reaching with murder. It will be up to the jurors now, but I think the instructions will be clear that they will acquit.
Here’s the actual Wisconsin statute:

they have a big warehouse full of beer, why ain't that in the news....?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,447
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
This is the "clean hands" part:
939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,113
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
So what? Predacious little fuckers
"Predacious little fucker" describes Joseph Rosenbaum much better actually.
rosenbaumsexoffender.jpg


And what about Mom-the-accessory?
How was KR's mother an "accessory"? Please be specific.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
No, real patriots understand that there is nothing more patriotic than the right to protest.
"Right to protest" does not include burning down businesses and vandalizing a courthouse and a museum, which is what #BLM and Antifa creeps were doing in Kenosha at that time.
It also does not include the right to be hunted down and killed by AR toting idiots who think they are fucking patriots, but are in reality fascists.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,934
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Obviously trump was right to want to shoot violent protesters. The Capitol Police should have been well enough armed to mow down everyone who entered or damaged the building. And that might have shut the seditionists up so we wouldn’t still be dealing with Trumpers’ Big Lie.

“Right to protest” doesn’t include killing and injuring cops, and certainly doesn’t include causing the dreaded PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,142
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
A video of him has been posted where he was observing people (possibly looters and others) coming out of a CVS in which he said he wished he had his gun. In other words, implying he was willing to shoot people at large who,
No. It does not imply that. It is consistent with that but it is also consistent with many other scenarios, like "they would get a fright from seeing the gun and maybe rethink their actions" or not as any kind of threat at all, like when a sitcom character says "the things you see when you haven't got a gun".

He literally says "I'd start shooting rounds at them."
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,293
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
A video of him has been posted where he was observing people (possibly looters and others) coming out of a CVS in which he said he wished he had his gun. In other words, implying he was willing to shoot people at large who,
No. It does not imply that. It is consistent with that but it is also consistent with many other scenarios, like "they would get a fright from seeing the gun and maybe rethink their actions" or not as any kind of threat at all, like when a sitcom character says "the things you see when you haven't got a gun".

He literally says "I'd start shooting rounds at them."
Just locker room talk…
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,676
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
A video of him has been posted where he was observing people (possibly looters and others) coming out of a CVS in which he said he wished he had his gun. In other words, implying he was willing to shoot people at large who,
No. It does not imply that. It is consistent with that but it is also consistent with many other scenarios, like "they would get a fright from seeing the gun and maybe rethink their actions" or not as any kind of threat at all, like when a sitcom character says "the things you see when you haven't got a gun".

He literally says "I'd start shooting rounds at them."

In before "Maybe he meant rounds of beer from a bar."
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
If that is the law, it looks like a pretty bad one: A person on the run would have to choose between getting killed and breaking the law. The rational choice would almost certainly be to break the law and shoot, which might or might not get him killed years later, depending on the punishment for shooting back and of course whether he actually gets caught. There is still a question as to whether that's a morally acceptable choice, of course: maybe it would be rational but immoral to shoot back, yet permissible but irrational not to! However, there probably are plenty of cases that do not fall into that category because it's not immoral to shoot back - e.g., at least, most of the cases in which the violence that was initiated did not amount to something for which he deserves to be executed.
The point is, and has been shown by the prosecution's line of questioning, that KR knew quite clearly he was putting himself into a dangerous situation which reduces significantly his ability to claim self defense.

You can't climb into a WWF wrestling ring and then cry unfair when get your ass beat.
That is not the point I was commenting on (and by the way, you can go - for example - into a dangerous neighborhood and then sue if you get your ass beat, so there is no general principle that you can't cry unfair after putting yourself in danger; but still not the point I was commenting on. And no, the dangerous neighborhood is not meant as an analogy to Rittenhouse case, but rather a reply to the WWF wrestling analogy).
Rittenhouse wasn't just going into a situation where he expected he might be in danger--he was actively seeking out a dangerous situation so that he could prove himself to be a hero. By shooting bad guys.
I'm not sure why that is a reply to my post. I did not make any claims about his motivation, one way or another.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,142
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
This is the "clean hands" part:
939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

Looks like the judge is going to include provocation in the jury instructions, but it doesn't apply to breaking curfew, being crossing police lines, etc. It's the state's theory that KR started the altercation by raising his gun and pointing it at someone right before the shooting. They say video shows it. The video is hard to see, I can't see what they're describing. The defense disputes it.

But the theory does make sense, because both sides agree he puts down his fire extinguisher right before the alleged gun movement. Which would probably do if he wanted to brandish the weapon. He's at the Car Source at this point, the place that he was sworn to protect with his life. There is a fire there, but he doesn't take his extinguisher over to the fire, he puts it down instead. Plausibly, he put it down, to use the gun to scare off the arsonists. Just like he did to the yellow pants guy earlier in the night. The defense says at this point, JR shouts "gun gun gun" which would be consistent with KR raising his.

Anyway, if he provokes the attack, he has a duty to retreat and he has to announce his withdrawal to the other guy. He does start to retreat but turns around. Defense says he couldn't keep going because a lot people in front of him.

This is a complicated case, it all happens very fast, hard to pin down, what should decide. I think that helps KR, helps add doubt. It is the state's burden to disprove self defense.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
A video of him has been posted where he was observing people (possibly looters and others) coming out of a CVS in which he said he wished he had his gun. In other words, implying he was willing to shoot people at large who,
No. It does not imply that. It is consistent with that but it is also consistent with many other scenarios, like "they would get a fright from seeing the gun and maybe rethink their actions" or not as any kind of threat at all, like when a sitcom character says "the things you see when you haven't got a gun".

He literally says "I'd start shooting rounds at them."
I've never said anything I don't mean literally.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,113
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Obviously trump was right to want to shoot violent protesters. The Capitol Police ...
Wrong thread!
“Right to protest” doesn’t include killing and injuring cops, and certainly doesn’t include causing the dreaded PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!
Nobody is claiming it does, but thanks for the straw man.
Now ask yourself why you and your fellow leftists only condemn all this in one single instance and not in the myriad instances it happened since 2014 (and especially throughout 2020).
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,113
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
If cops hadn’t shot up some unarmed guy whose small children were in the back of the car, there wouldn’t have been unrest in Kenosha.
Toni, give it a rest with your misinformation!
1. Jacob Blake was armed. He was holding a knife.
2. The vehicle was not his.
3. He did not have custody of the kids.
4. He had a felony sexual assault warrant.


And note that even if the shooting was not justified, rioting, looting and arson certainly is not.

If there were not dozens and dozens and dozens of other instances of cops shooting unarmed people, there would not be these demonstrations and protests that turn into riots with collateral damage, both property and human.
Most police shootings involve armed subjects. And often unarmed subjects can also be a threat justifying use of lethal force. If the police officer is too hesitant in shooting, un unarmed assailant can disarm that police officer and use his or her weapon against the cop. This has happened numerous times in the past.
Also, often armed perps also precipitate rioting. Jacob Blake was armed. Mario Woods was armed. Keith Smith was armed (it was not a book after all!)

It is hard to have peace without justice.
What justice? Jacob Blake - no matter how much Kamala Harris is proud of him - brought the shooting on himself.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,113
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It also does not include the right to be hunted down and killed
None of the shootees were "hunted down". JR chased KR and grabbed the barrel of his rifle. AH chased KR and hit him with a skateboard while also trying to grab his rifle. GG pointed his illegally carried handgun at KR.
It is a lie to suggest that KR "hunted down" anybody. If anything, he was the hunted.

by AR toting idiots who think they are fucking patriots, but are in reality fascists.
To the communist Antifas, everybody to the right of Leon Trotsky is considered a "fascist".
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,299
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist

Rex Huppke: Guilty or innocent, Kyle Rittenhouse should disgust us all


Wisconsin State Journal:
Is our common sense so eroded by political divisions and tragically twisted concepts of masculinity that we can’t all agree that no 17-year-old should be traipsing around any city at any time of day with a weapon like that?


Are we ready to start heroizing teen vigilantism? Do we want untrained youth whose prefrontal cortexes, the part of the brain responsible for controlling impulses, aren’t fully developed, patrolling streets with deadly weapons?

Does anyone really think that’s going to end well? It certainly didn’t in Kenosha.
The bottom line is this: The people hailing Rittenhouse as a good ol’ American boy who had the guts to stand up to lawbreakers are only doing so because they’re OK with the type of people he killed. In the Rittenhouse-as-hero narrative, the three men he gunned down were not people on the opposite side of the ideological fence — they were the enemy. They were either supportive of or consorting with groups protesting the police. They were, as Carlson wrote, “filth.”

This is all wrong. This is all wildly, fundamentally wrong. We can disagree over the individual circumstances of these or any other cases. But we can’t ignore the vastly different ways a white teen and a teenager of color are treated when they’re armed. And we can’t, for the love of God, encourage, revere or in any way normalize armed young people acting like judge, jury and executioner.

Rittenhouse’s presence in Kenosha was as abnormal as it was unnecessary. We should be disgusted by it. We should be disgusted by him and by anyone cheering him, no matter the jury’s verdict.

If we can’t agree on that, if we can’t see what’s happening here and recognize it as a profound problem, we’ve lost our center, our sense of decency and our minds.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,447
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
A video of him has been posted where he was observing people (possibly looters and others) coming out of a CVS in which he said he wished he had his gun. In other words, implying he was willing to shoot people at large who,
No. It does not imply that. It is consistent with that but it is also consistent with many other scenarios, like "they would get a fright from seeing the gun and maybe rethink their actions" or not as any kind of threat at all, like when a sitcom character says "the things you see when you haven't got a gun".

He literally says "I'd start shooting rounds at them."
I've never said anything I don't mean literally.
Sure, hon.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,934
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
So what? Predacious little fuckers
"Predacious little fucker" describes Joseph Rosenbaum much better actually.
Wrong thread.
How was KR's mother an "accessory"? Please be specific.
Arming, then Transporting a kid across State lines for the purpose of shooting protesters... just a "normal" thing for you right wing extremists, so no surprise you see nothing wrong with it.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,934
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
“Right to protest” doesn’t include killing and injuring cops, and certainly doesn’t include causing the dreaded PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!

Now ask yourself why you and your fellow leftists only condemn all this in one single instance and not in the myriad instances...
Wrong thread again, Derec. Focus, dude - you can DO IT! This thread is about your boy Kyle and the people he murdered
You used to insist that YOU were a "liberal", Derec. What happened? You sure went full trumpsucker in a big way. Is it your shared love of prostitutes? That's cool... you, Trump and Jesus.... peas in a pod.
 
Top Bottom