victrola wrote:

So, Rittenhouse got off. Given the circumstances and the laws in this country, this was bound to be the result. If I were on the jury, I would have reluctantly voted to acquit. However, I think there is something very wrong where mommy lets an underage punk kid have an AR-15 and drives him to a riot so that he can fulfill his vigilante fantasies. I think the whole situation was poorly handled by the authorities. The last thing you need in a tense situation like this is a bunch of untrained yahoos with their guns trying to "help" keep law and order.

His mother didn't drive him. You're right about the authorities. They shouldn't have pulled the police back.

As the media tours for those involved continue, it will be interesting to learn more about the planning and prep that went into the trial. The defense has mentioned the use of mock juries, for example, and it would be interesting to know what was learned from that, and informed their strategy - everything from what he was wearing to the timing of the tears when testifying, presumably, would have been tested.

johns624 wrote:

victrola wrote:

So, Rittenhouse got off. Given the circumstances and the laws in this country, this was bound to be the result. If I were on the jury, I would have reluctantly voted to acquit. However, I think there is something very wrong where mommy lets an underage punk kid have an AR-15 and drives him to a riot so that he can fulfill his vigilante fantasies. I think the whole situation was poorly handled by the authorities. The last thing you need in a tense situation like this is a bunch of untrained yahoos with their guns trying to "help" keep law and order.

His mother didn't drive him. You're right about the authorities. They shouldn't have pulled the police back.

Should never, ever have allowed businesses to invite armed persons onto their property to protect them from rioters. That's the job of the Police.

As soon as you introduce people armed into a riot you're going to have stupid things happen.

LCDFlight wrote:

The defense did not need to prove self defense. Instead, the prosecution had to prove it was murder. This was an impossible task, because the self defense claim was not only viable, it was also documented on film, and agreed by witnesses. A lot of people find the law confusing, likely including the guys who were shot - and yet the 17 year old Rittenhouse had no trouble navigating the law.

I find it shocking that so many people cannot or will not understand that you are allowed to be almost anywhere you want to be, and defend yourself if you are attacked. We have become used to hearing that the violent men attacking us are actually the victim. I can still recall the days when boys and men were not supposed to attack innocent people. The 17 year old got it right away. And legally, it isn’t “more complicated” than that.

When he got out of his house and drive 20 miles to the protest and carried that gun toward the crowd, who had personally attacked him originally in his home? He must still be held to account for taking two lives for no good reason. He inserted himself into a situation he had no business being a part of. He opened fire because he felt some kind of way. Those people who came toward him felt threatened but had the good sense to keep their guns at home.

Funny how a "violent mob" does not have weapons and a white man firing an AR-15 into a crowd is the victim.

If they felt threatened, why did they come towards him? It sounds like they could've been the threateners. How far did they come to riot? One of the 3 did not "keep their guns at home". The other two were convicted of crimes that precluded them from owning firearms. Do you know what the term "fact check" means? You should try it sometime.

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The defense did not need to prove self defense. Instead, the prosecution had to prove it was murder. This was an impossible task, because the self defense claim was not only viable, it was also documented on film, and agreed by witnesses. A lot of people find the law confusing, likely including the guys who were shot - and yet the 17 year old Rittenhouse had no trouble navigating the law.

I find it shocking that so many people cannot or will not understand that you are allowed to be almost anywhere you want to be, and defend yourself if you are attacked. We have become used to hearing that the violent men attacking us are actually the victim. I can still recall the days when boys and men were not supposed to attack innocent people. The 17 year old got it right away. And legally, it isn’t “more complicated” than that.

When he got out of his house and drive 20 miles to the protest and carried that gun toward the crowd, who had personally attacked him originally in his home? He must still be held to account for taking two lives for no good reason. He inserted himself into a situation he had no business being a part of. He opened fire because he felt some kind of way. Those people who came toward him felt threatened but had the good sense to keep their guns at home.

Funny how a "violent mob" does not have weapons and a white man firing an AR-15 into a crowd is the victim.

I understand you have a very biased view, but you REALLY should take the time to get all of the facts of what actually occurred because your posts are a prime example of how media misinformation (on both sides) can cause people to ignore actual facts.

FACT: One of "those people who came toward him [that] felt threatened but had the good sense to keep their guns at home" DID have a gun, and he pointed it at Rittenhouse.

Aaron747 wrote:

cairns wrote:

"CNN is centrist." Nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard over that one.

Compared to MSNBC or CBS? Unquestionably so. There are many progressives who call for deplatforming CNN’s ‘corporate agenda’.

CNN is to the left, but at least the website tries to balance itself every now and then. I don't watch the channel itself but can compare cnn.com and foxnews.com and notice foxnews is far more slanted right, than cnn slanted left. And odd articles- such that the Squad didn't congratulate Winsome Sears. Pretty much something on the Squad every 3-4 days with a peculiar obsession with them.

Today's cnn.com link is Rising Theft
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/business ... index.html

Making it the top story is a Right point. I was at a Dunkin yesterday and it had Fox Business Channel with wall-to-wall coverage of the Nordstrom theft in SF, almost as if it was as bad as the January 6th insurrection.

Meanwhile Fox News will never have any article about a viewpoint supported by the Left, and never anything critical of the Republican.

MSNBC is far left by only being anti-Republican, but it was said that it never had positive articles on Bernie Sanders or coverage for other Democrats like Andrew Yang at the time of elections. Is it pro progressive in viewpoint?

phluser wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

cairns wrote:

"CNN is centrist." Nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard over that one.

Compared to MSNBC or CBS? Unquestionably so. There are many progressives who call for deplatforming CNN’s ‘corporate agenda’.

CNN is to the left, but at least the website tries to balance itself every now and then. I don't watch the channel itself but can compare cnn.com and foxnews.com and notice foxnews is far more slanted right, than cnn slanted left. And odd articles- such that the Squad didn't congratulate Winsome Sears. Pretty much something on the Squad every 3-4 days with a peculiar obsession with them.

Today's cnn.com link is Rising Theft
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/business ... index.html

Making it the top story is a Right point. I was at a Dunkin yesterday and it had Fox Business Channel with wall-to-wall coverage of the Nordstrom theft in SF, almost as if it was as bad as the January 6th insurrection.

Meanwhile Fox News will never have any article about a viewpoint supported by the Left, and never anything critical of the Republican.

MSNBC is far left by only being anti-Republican, but it was said that it never had positive articles on Bernie Sanders or coverage for other Democrats like Andrew Yang at the time of elections. Is it pro progressive in viewpoint?

I agree with you regarding Fox aside from Tucker, I believe he has been openly critical about Republicans a lot within the past year. I am not an avid watcher so I don't know for 100% sure what he said but I know this at least.

Rittenhouse and his mother visited with former President Trump at his home in Mar-A-Lagro Tuesday. This is very disturbing at the least, making Rittenhouse a hero to the extremist right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/politics ... index.html

ltbewr wrote:

Rittenhouse and his mother visited with former President Trump at his home in Mar-A-Lagro Tuesday. This is very disturbing at the least, making Rittenhouse a hero to the extremist right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/politics ... index.html

Unfortunately, the extremist right is now the mainstream of the Republican party.

Just wait for the Abery trial verdict. I'm predicting not-guilty.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I assume that in Rittenhouse's mind he was defending his homeland from a threat. Note - In his mind.

80 years ago, it is estimated that 6,000 Danes joined the German Army to fight against the Soviets on the Eastern Front. So in 1943, some 17 or 18 year old felt his homeland (Denmark) was under threat. Young men do rash, foolish things. And have since the beginning of time.

To think Rittenhouse's actions are just an American "illness", I'm afraid his train of thought is shared throughout the species.

Well said!

Aaron747 wrote:

KWexpress wrote:

seb146 wrote:

This verdict. Rittenhouse had no reason to carry an AR-15 into a protest then claim he felt threatened and open fire. None at all. No one but no one was surrounding his house, no one but no one was ransacking his house. He has no reason to walk into a crowd of protesters, claim he felt threatened, and kill. But, the judge and jury believe that is just fine.

Someone didn't watch the trial and it shows! The jury and judge believe it's just fine, because they took the time to hear testimony from the people actually involved and at the riot, not some CNN pundit.

CNN is centrist - your target should be MSNBC. Several CNN legal commentators have noted the prosecution made critical errors and the self defense verdict is logical. If you compare coverage at the two there’s no comparison.

In no way is cnn centrist, what are you smoking?

cairns wrote:

"CNN is centrist." Nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard over that one.

Facts, in what world is cnn centrist?

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

cairns wrote:

"CNN is centrist." Nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard over that one.

Compared to MSNBC or CBS? Unquestionably so. There are many progressives who call for deplatforming CNN’s ‘corporate agenda’.

According to this website below, they are a tad to the left , but quite a bit more centrist than Fox news,


https://adfontesmedia.com/

Take a look at your favorite sources and determine where your point of center is.

I've seen that plenty of times and no one can back up its validity. Since when is WSJ on the right? Apparently whomever made that meme has never read a WSJ article!

ItnStln wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Compared to MSNBC or CBS? Unquestionably so. There are many progressives who call for deplatforming CNN’s ‘corporate agenda’.

According to this website below, they are a tad to the left , but quite a bit more centrist than Fox news,


https://adfontesmedia.com/

Take a look at your favorite sources and determine where your point of center is.

I've seen that plenty of times and no one can back up its validity. Since when is WSJ on the right? Apparently whomever made that meme has never read a WSJ article!

It seems pretty accurate. AP and Reuters just report while OANN and Fox have hard right agendas.

BTW, WSJ is owned by News Corp. which owns Fox

https://ballotpedia.org/The_Wall_Street ... ews%20Corp.

seb146 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

casinterest wrote:

According to this website below, they are a tad to the left , but quite a bit more centrist than Fox news,


https://adfontesmedia.com/

Take a look at your favorite sources and determine where your point of center is.

I've seen that plenty of times and no one can back up its validity. Since when is WSJ on the right? Apparently whomever made that meme has never read a WSJ article!

It seems pretty accurate. AP and Reuters just report while OANN and Fox have hard right agendas.

BTW, WSJ is owned by News Corp. which owns Fox

https://ballotpedia.org/The_Wall_Street ... ews%20Corp.

That meme is hardly accurate, and is nothing more than entertainment. Since you want to talk about agendas, you left out the agendas that WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, Politico and Vox have. I'm aware of who owns WSJ but, as I have said, whomever made that meme has never read a WSJ article. Their articles in no way skew right, actually they're pretty leftist. I would know, I am a subscriber.

victrola wrote:

Just wait for the Abery trial verdict. I'm predicting not-guilty.

As it should be! The moment you grab for another's gun it becomes self defense.

ItnStln wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Compared to MSNBC or CBS? Unquestionably so. There are many progressives who call for deplatforming CNN’s ‘corporate agenda’.

According to this website below, they are a tad to the left , but quite a bit more centrist than Fox news,


https://adfontesmedia.com/

Take a look at your favorite sources and determine where your point of center is.

I've seen that plenty of times and no one can back up its validity. Since when is WSJ on the right? Apparently whomever made that meme has never read a WSJ article!

Drunk people never think they are drunk, but that does not change the neutral observers point of view. That document has their sources published. Go take issue with their methodology, but the fact that it is a triangle, makes me think they have it about right.

seb146 wrote:

It seems pretty accurate. AP and Reuters just report while OANN and Fox have hard right agendas.

AP and Reuters 'report' selectively -- another form of media bias.

Reinhardt wrote:

johns624 wrote:

victrola wrote:

So, Rittenhouse got off. Given the circumstances and the laws in this country, this was bound to be the result. If I were on the jury, I would have reluctantly voted to acquit. However, I think there is something very wrong where mommy lets an underage punk kid have an AR-15 and drives him to a riot so that he can fulfill his vigilante fantasies. I think the whole situation was poorly handled by the authorities. The last thing you need in a tense situation like this is a bunch of untrained yahoos with their guns trying to "help" keep law and order.

His mother didn't drive him. You're right about the authorities. They shouldn't have pulled the police back.

Should never, ever have allowed businesses to invite armed persons onto their property to protect them from rioters. That's the job of the Police.

As soon as you introduce people armed into a riot you're going to have stupid things happen.

Really? Well you know if the police had been allowed to do their jobs I would agree with you. Far too many so called "peaceful protests" have been anything but that. How many businesses have to burn down before liberals understand that is the whole point of why people like Rittenhouse were there in the first place. Liberal city councils , politicians and prosecutors have allowed these anarchists to run amok with no consequences in the name of some kind of social justice. There is a reason why businesses are closing shop in cities like San Francisco and Portland and it is not COVID.

ItnStln wrote:

victrola wrote:

Wait I thought he was jogging while wearing unlaced Tims. You might want to get your facts straight, because it is not arrogant or insane to protect yourself while a criminal reaches for your gun. Actually to call it racist shows how ignorant you are of the laws and the facts. It's a simple self defense case where the criminal, when confronted, attempted to steal a gun and, rightfully so, got shot and killed in the process. Plus your "cracker punk" comment shows that you are a racist.

Shoving a gun is someone's face is an act of aggression. I know people like you think it is your God given right to shove a gun in someone's face. They had no right to shove the gun in his face in the first place. I guess people like you always figure that when a black person is running, he must have just committed a crime.

They didn't shove a gun in anyone's face, stop making shit up. What do you mean "people like you?" It is racist of you to assume that if I see a black person running I assume he committed a crime. In this case he got what he deserved. He was witnessed casing out a house, was confronted and attempted to steal a gun from an armed citizen. His being shot is self defense, nothing more.

Casing a house? Sorry but the video showed many people walking into those houses. Most people go look at layouts of buildings while being built to see what it looks like.

Was Aubrey caught with anything in his hands?
No.
Those men were racists that flat out committed murder. They profiled someone, and went with shotguns and instigated an attack.

Personal attacks and off topic comments need to stop. Warnings and bans will be issued. If you report a comment, forum rules do not allow you to also respond to that post. Please report it and move on.

✈️ atcsundevil

I don't find a lot in common between the Rittenhouse case (the subject of this thread) and the Aubery murder.

johns624 wrote:

I don't find a lot in common between the Rittenhouse case (the subject of this thread) and the Aubery murder.

Well if you watch the video, the final act after Arbery was cornered and chased with nothing in his hand was for him to go after the man in front of him with a shotgun.
The man with the shotgun was protecting his gun per his testimony. Of course it was a gun at the end of a man that had profiled and chased a man down a street.

The item that connects to Rittenhouse is that anyone with a gun can claim self defense for fear of the loss of their murder weapon, but unarmed people have no real recourse.

//edit

The three men have been found guilty of murder in this case.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud ... index.html

Okay, let's try this again. This thread is about the Rittenhouse trial. Any other subject is off topic. No personal attacks, and no flamebait. I will reiterate what I said about warnings and bans — engage in a respectful, on topic discourse.

✈️ atcsundevil

casinterest wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

victrola wrote:

Wait I thought he was jogging while wearing unlaced Tims. You might want to get your facts straight, because it is not arrogant or insane to protect yourself while a criminal reaches for your gun. Actually to call it racist shows how ignorant you are of the laws and the facts. It's a simple self defense case where the criminal, when confronted, attempted to steal a gun and, rightfully so, got shot and killed in the process. Plus your "cracker punk" comment shows that you are a racist.

Shoving a gun is someone's face is an act of aggression. I know people like you think it is your God given right to shove a gun in someone's face. They had no right to shove the gun in his face in the first place. I guess people like you always figure that when a black person is running, he must have just committed a crime.

They didn't shove a gun in anyone's face, stop making shit up. What do you mean "people like you?" It is racist of you to assume that if I see a black person running I assume he committed a crime. In this case he got what he deserved. He was witnessed casing out a house, was confronted and attempted to steal a gun from an armed citizen. His being shot is self defense, nothing more.

Casing a house? Sorry but the video showed many people walking into those houses. Most people go look at layouts of buildings while being built to see what it looks like.

Was Aubrey caught with anything in his hands?
No.
Those men were racists that flat out committed murder. They profiled someone, and went with shotguns and instigated an attack.

At best the Arbury case was trespassing. The jury got this right those 3 were convicted of murder and rightfully so. Too bad liberals can't respect the jury verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse

stratosphere wrote:

casinterest wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

They didn't shove a gun in anyone's face, stop making shit up. What do you mean "people like you?" It is racist of you to assume that if I see a black person running I assume he committed a crime. In this case he got what he deserved. He was witnessed casing out a house, was confronted and attempted to steal a gun from an armed citizen. His being shot is self defense, nothing more.

Casing a house? Sorry but the video showed many people walking into those houses. Most people go look at layouts of buildings while being built to see what it looks like.

Was Aubrey caught with anything in his hands?
No.
Those men were racists that flat out committed murder. They profiled someone, and went with shotguns and instigated an attack.

Too bad liberals can't respect the jury verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse

Many have and do, as long as one isn’t laser-focused on MSNBC. Multitasking: it is possible to find the verdict agreeable and also agree that in states like Wisconsin, the outcome for a black defendant in Rittenhouse’s shoes would likely be different. It is possible to find the verdict agreeable and also think lionization of Rittenhouse by right wing media figures is craven and ridiculous. And as noted, CNN’s terribly leftist legal commentators have all said the verdict is understandable and logical given the evidence and prosecution mistakes in the Rittenhouse trial.

And like the jury, it is possible to think Rittenhouse was in the wrong, but not guilty of murder.

But back to the tilte topic.
As an ardent supporter of peaceful rpotest like the afforementioned acquited accused. Of course I would a carry a fully loaded M60 ( if i was allowed one) to protest peacefully.

i'm just wondering where the link is between peaceful protest and biggest gun allowed by law.

victrola wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Rittenhouse and his mother visited with former President Trump at his home in Mar-A-Lagro Tuesday. This is very disturbing at the least, making Rittenhouse a hero to the extremist right.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/politics ... index.html

Unfortunately, the extremist right is now the mainstream of the Republican party.

Just wait for the Abery trial verdict. I'm predicting not-guilty.

Luckily your prediction was wrong.

Is it really so controversial to believe that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in Kenosha with an AR that night, but that he also had not just the legal right but the human right to defend himself once he was attacked? Too many people get caught up in their "side" being right....take the blinders off. The jury made the right decision in the Rittenhouse trial just like they made the right one in the Avery trial.

Not trying to drive this thread off topic, but it seems like if you belong to the right you are expected to believe certain things (COVID is fake or not a threat, Trump won, Rittenhouse is a hero) and if you are on the left you are expected to believe other things (Rittenhouse was a terrorist, Antifa/BLM didn't riot in 2020, cops are bad, etc). The end result is people falling for misinformation as long as it makes their side look good or the other side look bad. Society as a whole suffers because people are so caught up in these identities that they don't give a hoot what the facts are.

TriJets wrote:

Is it really so controversial to believe that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in Kenosha with an AR that night, but that he also had not just the legal right but the human right to defend himself once he was attacked? Too many people get caught up in their "side" being right....take the blinders off. The jury made the right decision in the Rittenhouse trial just like they made the right one in the Avery trial.

Not trying to drive this thread off topic, but it seems like if you belong to the right you are expected to believe certain things (COVID is fake or not a threat, Trump won, Rittenhouse is a hero) and if you are on the left you are expected to believe other things (Rittenhouse was a terrorist, Antifa/BLM didn't riot in 2020, cops are bad, etc). The end result is people falling for misinformation as long as it makes their side look good or the other side look bad. Society as a whole suffers because people are so caught up in these identities that they don't give a hoot what the facts are.

In most cases I barely 'lean' to the right, so because I am closer to the middle is it OK for me to believe Trump is a (choose your own description) and Rittenhouse is just a stupid boy/man?

Rittenhouse is a self-confessed avid supporter of peaceful protest. All peaceful protesters kit themselves out like Rambo, where possible.
As the man said "we come in peace, shoot to kill."

I can think of no other country in the world where anyone can get away with stating they were engeged in peaceful protest while carrying a rifle. We should wrap some copper wire around Ghandi and use him as a generator.

johns624 wrote:

victrola wrote:

So, Rittenhouse got off. Given the circumstances and the laws in this country, this was bound to be the result. If I were on the jury, I would have reluctantly voted to acquit. However, I think there is something very wrong where mommy lets an underage punk kid have an AR-15 and drives him to a riot so that he can fulfill his vigilante fantasies. I think the whole situation was poorly handled by the authorities. The last thing you need in a tense situation like this is a bunch of untrained yahoos with their guns trying to "help" keep law and order.

His mother didn't drive him. You're right about the authorities. They shouldn't have pulled the police back.

So, in the hours before he loaded his AR-15 and drove 20 miles to a protest, how many of those protesters attacked his house? How many of those protesters physically went to his house and took his stuff?

The argument by the right is "he was under attack" and "he felt threatened" but, to me, he only felt that way AFTER he inserted himself into a situation nowhere near his home or property. So, what was the threat in the hours before he opened fire into a group of protesters? Before he got in his car with his gun? What was the threat?

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

victrola wrote:

So, Rittenhouse got off. Given the circumstances and the laws in this country, this was bound to be the result. If I were on the jury, I would have reluctantly voted to acquit. However, I think there is something very wrong where mommy lets an underage punk kid have an AR-15 and drives him to a riot so that he can fulfill his vigilante fantasies. I think the whole situation was poorly handled by the authorities. The last thing you need in a tense situation like this is a bunch of untrained yahoos with their guns trying to "help" keep law and order.

His mother didn't drive him. You're right about the authorities. They shouldn't have pulled the police back.

So, in the hours before he loaded his AR-15 and drove 20 miles to a protest, how many of those protesters attacked his house? How many of those protesters physically went to his house and took his stuff?

The argument by the right is "he was under attack" and "he felt threatened" but, to me, he only felt that way AFTER he inserted himself into a situation nowhere near his home or property. So, what was the threat in the hours before he opened fire into a group of protesters? Before he got in his car with his gun? What was the threat?

Self-defense doesn't only apply to people at their home.

PhilBy wrote:

Rittenhouse is a self-confessed avid supporter of peaceful protest. All peaceful protesters kit themselves out like Rambo, where possible.
As the man said "we come in peace, shoot to kill."

I can think of no other country in the world where anyone can get away with stating they were engeged in peaceful protest while carrying a rifle. We should wrap some copper wire around Ghandi and use him as a generator.

To be fair, there were many armed people on both sides of the issue in Kenosha that night. So many so that the police testified after the shots rang out that they didn't know who the shooter was because there were so many people with guns present.

Reinhardt wrote:

johns624 wrote:

victrola wrote:

So, Rittenhouse got off. Given the circumstances and the laws in this country, this was bound to be the result. If I were on the jury, I would have reluctantly voted to acquit. However, I think there is something very wrong where mommy lets an underage punk kid have an AR-15 and drives him to a riot so that he can fulfill his vigilante fantasies. I think the whole situation was poorly handled by the authorities. The last thing you need in a tense situation like this is a bunch of untrained yahoos with their guns trying to "help" keep law and order.

His mother didn't drive him. You're right about the authorities. They shouldn't have pulled the police back.

Should never, ever have allowed businesses to invite armed persons onto their property to protect them from rioters. That's the job of the Police.

As soon as you introduce people armed into a riot you're going to have stupid things happen.

If the police had been allowed to do their jobs, the rioting would have been quelled in 3-5 minutes.

Again you presume that we can somehow “stop” law abiding Americans from traveling from place to place. Or stopping them from defending themselves, if attacked. These are constitutional rights. We can only stop criminals from committing crimes. We cannot stop law abiding people from doing legal things.

LCDFlight wrote:

If the police had been allowed to do their jobs, the rioting would have been quelled in 3-5 minutes.

Maybe not 3-5 minutes but yes your point is taken. The first night can always be semi-understood if a protest turns into a riot (depends on pre-planning, notice etc) but a second night is unforgiveable. The police should have put a stop to it with the national guard if needed.

That night was ridiculous, with huge numbers of people armed on both sides.

LCDFlight wrote:

Again you presume that we can somehow “stop” law abiding Americans from traveling from place to place. Or stopping them from defending themselves, if attacked. These are constitutional rights. We can only stop criminals from committing crimes. We cannot stop law abiding people from doing legal things.

I think by the law Rittenhouse was rightfully found not guilty. I don't think he did anything wrong.

That doesn't stop me saying that the law that allows anyone to carry an AR15 in public, especially at a protest or riot is wrong, likewise open carrying or not a glock is nuts. I accept these are the laws, but my belief (as a crazy liberal (hell most of us by US standards) european) in this day and age guns should be limited to those living in rural areas with a specific need, & hunters. Anyone else = gun range only. Any country that needs normal people armed for self defence in a built up area doesn't have a functioning law and order / Police setup. Likewise the right to bare arms - yes yes that's been done to death. At what point does a society decide it needs to overthrow a government? What % of the population must all be in agreement before that happens? Do you really have any chance, if you truthfully believe that to be a potential thing to happens, do you really think you stand a chance against the military?

So then you have to ask yourself, what democracy, what country do you live in if you feel that is a remote possibility that makes you sacrifice so much for it's freedom (number of gun deaths). Anyway that's probably going off at a tangent but there we go.

Reinhardt wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

If the police had been allowed to do their jobs, the rioting would have been quelled in 3-5 minutes.

Maybe not 3-5 minutes but yes your point is taken. The first night can always be semi-understood if a protest turns into a riot (depends on pre-planning, notice etc) but a second night is unforgiveable. The police should have put a stop to it with the national guard if needed.

That night was ridiculous, with huge numbers of people armed on both sides.

LCDFlight wrote:

Again you presume that we can somehow “stop” law abiding Americans from traveling from place to place. Or stopping them from defending themselves, if attacked. These are constitutional rights. We can only stop criminals from committing crimes. We cannot stop law abiding people from doing legal things.

I think by the law Rittenhouse was rightfully found not guilty. I don't think he did anything wrong.

That doesn't stop me saying that the law that allows anyone to carry an AR15 in public, especially at a protest or riot is wrong, likewise open carrying or not a glock is nuts. I accept these are the laws, but my belief (as a crazy liberal (hell most of us by US standards) european) in this day and age guns should be limited to those living in rural areas with a specific need, & hunters. Anyone else = gun range only. Any country that needs normal people armed for self defence in a built up area doesn't have a functioning law and order / Police setup. Likewise the right to bare arms - yes yes that's been done to death. At what point does a society decide it needs to overthrow a government? What % of the population must all be in agreement before that happens? Do you really have any chance, if you truthfully believe that to be a potential thing to happens, do you really think you stand a chance against the military?

So then you have to ask yourself, what democracy, what country do you live in if you feel that is a remote possibility that makes you sacrifice so much for it's freedom (number of gun deaths). Anyway that's probably going off at a tangent but there we go.

You seem to be level headed. I don't own a gun (maybe we have a couple family hunting guns or something).

I used to agree with you that it is unthinkable that society would collapse. 2020 changed that. Kenosha, SF, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York. We still doubt that we might need a gun to protect ourselves? I think it has become realistic. There may be a gang of teenagers who goes from house to house, robbing and killing people. This happened across China in the 1960s and 1970s. Between 1 million - 20 million people died (nobody really knows - the teens burned the government records). Professors and merchants were taken out into the streets and beaten into a wheelchair or beaten to death. There was no rule of law. Instead, they went full Lord of the Flies.

This is a window into the chaos that the US was toying with in 2020. I think people probably need guns - teens and criminals all have them. But yes, these are the questions raised by Kenosha. Two sides of bums fight in the darkness. I don't support either side.

LCDFlight wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

If the police had been allowed to do their jobs, the rioting would have been quelled in 3-5 minutes.

Maybe not 3-5 minutes but yes your point is taken. The first night can always be semi-understood if a protest turns into a riot (depends on pre-planning, notice etc) but a second night is unforgiveable. The police should have put a stop to it with the national guard if needed.

That night was ridiculous, with huge numbers of people armed on both sides.

LCDFlight wrote:

Again you presume that we can somehow “stop” law abiding Americans from traveling from place to place. Or stopping them from defending themselves, if attacked. These are constitutional rights. We can only stop criminals from committing crimes. We cannot stop law abiding people from doing legal things.

I think by the law Rittenhouse was rightfully found not guilty. I don't think he did anything wrong.

That doesn't stop me saying that the law that allows anyone to carry an AR15 in public, especially at a protest or riot is wrong, likewise open carrying or not a glock is nuts. I accept these are the laws, but my belief (as a crazy liberal (hell most of us by US standards) european) in this day and age guns should be limited to those living in rural areas with a specific need, & hunters. Anyone else = gun range only. Any country that needs normal people armed for self defence in a built up area doesn't have a functioning law and order / Police setup. Likewise the right to bare arms - yes yes that's been done to death. At what point does a society decide it needs to overthrow a government? What % of the population must all be in agreement before that happens? Do you really have any chance, if you truthfully believe that to be a potential thing to happens, do you really think you stand a chance against the military?

So then you have to ask yourself, what democracy, what country do you live in if you feel that is a remote possibility that makes you sacrifice so much for it's freedom (number of gun deaths). Anyway that's probably going off at a tangent but there we go.

You seem to be level headed. I don't own a gun (maybe we have a couple family hunting guns or something).

I used to agree with you that it is unthinkable that society would collapse. 2020 changed that. Kenosha, SF, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York. We still doubt that we might need a gun to protect ourselves? I think it has become realistic. There may be a gang of teenagers who goes from house to house, robbing and killing people. This happened across China in the 1960s and 1970s. Between 1 million - 20 million people died (nobody really knows - the teens burned the government records). Professors and merchants were taken out into the streets and beaten into a wheelchair or beaten to death. There was no rule of law. Instead, they went full Lord of the Flies.

This is a window into the chaos that the US was toying with in 2020. I think people probably need guns - teens and criminals all have them. But yes, these are the questions raised by Kenosha. Two sides of bums fight in the darkness. I don't support either side.

People didn't need guns in the mid-70s, early 80s, and early 90s when homicide rates and gang violence were just about double what they are now? You might be too young to remember, but a lot of people do.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

His mother didn't drive him. You're right about the authorities. They shouldn't have pulled the police back.

So, in the hours before he loaded his AR-15 and drove 20 miles to a protest, how many of those protesters attacked his house? How many of those protesters physically went to his house and took his stuff?

The argument by the right is "he was under attack" and "he felt threatened" but, to me, he only felt that way AFTER he inserted himself into a situation nowhere near his home or property. So, what was the threat in the hours before he opened fire into a group of protesters? Before he got in his car with his gun? What was the threat?

Self-defense doesn't only apply to people at their home.

What did he need to defend from 20 miles away? What was his goal leaving his house that he was threatened from 20 miles away?

There is a convenience store about 3 miles from my house. They are right wing extremists. They boarded up their shop because someone said that someone heard that someone told that someone read that a caravan of antifa were coming to burn down our town. Never happened, not even close. I felt threatened by the shop owners but, not once, did it ever cross my mind to go home and get my gun.

So, I want to know: why was he so threatened by a protest 20 miles away? How fragile is he that he had to insert himself into a protest 20 miles away?

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, in the hours before he loaded his AR-15 and drove 20 miles to a protest, how many of those protesters attacked his house? How many of those protesters physically went to his house and took his stuff?

The argument by the right is "he was under attack" and "he felt threatened" but, to me, he only felt that way AFTER he inserted himself into a situation nowhere near his home or property. So, what was the threat in the hours before he opened fire into a group of protesters? Before he got in his car with his gun? What was the threat?

Self-defense doesn't only apply to people at their home.

What did he need to defend from 20 miles away? What was his goal leaving his house that he was threatened from 20 miles away?

There is a convenience store about 3 miles from my house. They are right wing extremists. They boarded up their shop because someone said that someone heard that someone told that someone read that a caravan of antifa were coming to burn down our town. Never happened, not even close. I felt threatened by the shop owners but, not once, did it ever cross my mind to go home and get my gun.

So, I want to know: why was he so threatened by a protest 20 miles away? How fragile is he that he had to insert himself into a protest 20 miles away?

Why are you so obsessed/infatuated with Rittenhouse? Everyone else has moved on and maybe you should too. Now we're talking about your friend who won't get a fair trial because the media didn't use a "good" picture of him.

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, in the hours before he loaded his AR-15 and drove 20 miles to a protest, how many of those protesters attacked his house? How many of those protesters physically went to his house and took his stuff?

The argument by the right is "he was under attack" and "he felt threatened" but, to me, he only felt that way AFTER he inserted himself into a situation nowhere near his home or property. So, what was the threat in the hours before he opened fire into a group of protesters? Before he got in his car with his gun? What was the threat?

Self-defense doesn't only apply to people at their home.

What did he need to defend from 20 miles away? What was his goal leaving his house that he was threatened from 20 miles away?

There is a convenience store about 3 miles from my house. They are right wing extremists. They boarded up their shop because someone said that someone heard that someone told that someone read that a caravan of antifa were coming to burn down our town. Never happened, not even close. I felt threatened by the shop owners but, not once, did it ever cross my mind to go home and get my gun.

So, I want to know: why was he so threatened by a protest 20 miles away? How fragile is he that he had to insert himself into a protest 20 miles away?

I'm not defending Rittenhouse's decision to go to Kenosha and pick up a rifle. I think that was stupid, and if I recall correctly even Rittenhouse has stated recently that if he could go back in time he never would have gone. I also think it was stupid for the rioters to go to Kenosha, many of them also armed and looking to cause trouble. However, just because I personally disagree with those decisions doesn't mean that the law does (or did). As other posters have said, if the police had been able to do their job and stop the rioting early on, things never would have escalated to the point where armed civilians showed up.

johns624 wrote:

Why are you so obsessed/infatuated with Rittenhouse? Everyone else has moved on and maybe you should too. Now we're talking about your friend who won't get a fair trial because the media didn't use a "good" picture of him.

This thread is fascinating because there’s a general agreement that the law was served the way it should, and that everyone involved was pretty stupid.

And then there’s one user who refuses to see it. Simple fact is that you can’t blame Rittenhouse just for being there. It’s a situation He should have avoided, full stop. But then you open that wormhole….why were the victims there? If they hadn’t gone, they wouldn’t have been in a position to get shot. But like Rittenhouse, they had a right to be there. (Another wormhole…the police should have taken action, crowds dispersed etc etc)

What I take issue with is how Rittenhouse really embraced the far right celebrity that he attained. Taking pictures with white supremacists, etc. But that’s not illegal…it just means he’s a bad person.

FGITD wrote:

This thread is fascinating because there’s a general agreement that the law was served the way it should, and that everyone involved was pretty stupid.

And then there’s one user who refuses to see it. Simple fact is that you can’t blame Rittenhouse just for being there. It’s a situation He should have avoided, full stop. But then you open that wormhole….why were the victims there? If they hadn’t gone, they wouldn’t have been in a position to get shot. But like Rittenhouse, they had a right to be there. (Another wormhole…the police should have taken action, crowds dispersed etc etc)

The whataboutism is ridiculous but it's just another tool the far left media will use. I mean if Blake didn't have a warrant for sexual assault and complied with law enforcement he wouldn't have got shot and that riot wouldn't have happened and Rittenhouse wouldn't have been there. See? Whataboutism at it's finest.

LCDFlight wrote:

You seem to be level headed. I don't own a gun (maybe we have a couple family hunting guns or something).

I used to agree with you that it is unthinkable that society would collapse. 2020 changed that. Kenosha, SF, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York. We still doubt that we might need a gun to protect ourselves? I think it has become realistic. There may be a gang of teenagers who goes from house to house, robbing and killing people. This happened across China in the 1960s and 1970s. Between 1 million - 20 million people died (nobody really knows - the teens burned the government records). Professors and merchants were taken out into the streets and beaten into a wheelchair or beaten to death. There was no rule of law. Instead, they went full Lord of the Flies.

Then this is an entire failure of government / elected officials. And that doesn't surprise me one iota considering the quality of persons I see being Governors, Mayors or even the last President. The fact the only alternative was Biden is damming enough by itself.

So basically there needs to be a fairer society, better law and order (more fair law and order) and a better educated population (who are therefore in a better position to smell BS in political candidates and not be pulled in by group think and lack huge amounts of critical thinking). It's clear the US has major problems right now and this is all starting to show itself in a brighter light.

Some of those issues aren't limited to the US, but those about race, police, guns, quality of representatives have been brewing for some time.

LCDFlight wrote:

This is a window into the chaos that the US was toying with in 2020. I think people probably need guns - teens and criminals all have them. But yes, these are the questions raised by Kenosha. Two sides of bums fight in the darkness. I don't support either side.

As I said, a very sad state of affairs that a country feels it needs guns. People need to start stepping up and stop blaming and marginalising each other and work out a common way to go forward. The right and left of politics is so polarising no side wants to back down and each is steadfastly refusing to accept there is a middle ground.

Rittenhouse is a student at Arizona State University and 'left wing' student groups are demanding he be immediately be withdrawn out of the (state run) school due to his acts of violence. I am surprised more students haven't called for him to be expelled on public safety and political grounds. Consider that there have been major criminal gun attacks with a number of deaths on several college campuses over the years, it is understandable why students would object to his presence.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/arizo ... hp&pc=U531

ltbewr wrote:

Rittenhouse is a student at Arizona State University and 'left wing' student groups are demanding he be immediately be withdrawn out of the (state run) school due to his acts of violence. I am surprised more students haven't called for him to be expelled on public safety and political grounds. Consider that there have been major criminal gun attacks with a number of deaths on several college campuses over the years, it is understandable why students would object to his presence.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/arizo ... hp&pc=U531

He isn't on campus. He's taking online courses. How does that affect the other students' safety? Also, public universities serve everyone. He wasn't convicted of a crime.

johns624 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Rittenhouse is a student at Arizona State University and 'left wing' student groups are demanding he be immediately be withdrawn out of the (state run) school due to his acts of violence. I am surprised more students haven't called for him to be expelled on public safety and political grounds. Consider that there have been major criminal gun attacks with a number of deaths on several college campuses over the years, it is understandable why students would object to his presence.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/arizo ... hp&pc=U531

He isn't on campus. He's taking online courses. How does that affect the other students' safety? Also, public universities serve everyone. He wasn't convicted of a crime.

It doesn't. College kids being typically unreasonable.

Aaron747 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Rittenhouse is a student at Arizona State University and 'left wing' student groups are demanding he be immediately be withdrawn out of the (state run) school due to his acts of violence. I am surprised more students haven't called for him to be expelled on public safety and political grounds. Consider that there have been major criminal gun attacks with a number of deaths on several college campuses over the years, it is understandable why students would object to his presence.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/arizo ... hp&pc=U531

He isn't on campus. He's taking online courses. How does that affect the other students' safety? Also, public universities serve everyone. He wasn't convicted of a crime.

It doesn't. College kids being typically unreasonable.

It isn't even all of the college kids. Just a select set of clubs.

Aaron747 wrote:

Many have and do, as long as one isn’t laser-focused on MSNBC. Multitasking: it is possible to find the verdict agreeable and also agree that in states like Wisconsin, the outcome for a black defendant in Rittenhouse’s shoes would likely be different. It is possible to find the verdict agreeable and also think lionization of Rittenhouse by right wing media figures is craven and ridiculous. And as noted, CNN’s terribly leftist legal commentators have all said the verdict is understandable and logical given the evidence and prosecution mistakes in the Rittenhouse trial.

And like the jury, it is possible to think Rittenhouse was in the wrong, but not guilty of murder.

I think the flip side to your analysis is that Rittenhouse was in the right, legally, at every point. As Holmes famously observed "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." Even in states where the right to self-defense is tempered by the duty to retreat, Rittenhouse was retreating and under immediate threat, as admitted to by the Prosecution's own witnesses. Despite this he is still slandered as a right wing extremist and murderer, by people including the President for reasons that have NOTHING to do with justice or the application thereof.

I think what is FAR more corrosive is the at best unsupported opinion that its only race that separates the Rittenhouse verdict from other cases. I think its an incredibly pernicious thing to say on multiple levels, and aside from being lazy and unsupported analysis, when repeated ad nauseum by politicians and the media its taken on a life of its outside of the fact pattern.