Be armed, which is absolutely unacceptable to people that want to fuck about but not find out.
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Yeah but you have to remember the right-wing point of view. Guns don't kill people, panicking children with an illegal gun out past curfew in another state kill people, but its okay because the murdered were liberals.
No. It's okay because he was protecting himself from an idiot. I'm just sad that Huber was an eventual casualty because of what the idiot did. Whole thing is just a situation going from bad to worse due to compounding misunderstandings.
But all those things according to some totally allow White Supremacists to exist and operate so we must get rid of them because those things are bad because they allow bad people to keep on and totally isn't going to end up abused by radicals in the other direction.
That's why these arguments are dumb and nonsensical in my view because a lot of it is "You should cut off your own leg because some-one could come and try to cut it off if you don't" rhetoric.
Yeh they were kinda busy and the people against Kyle want no police anymore. The new woke position is community policing which would be doing just what Kyle did.........
Only in his case he took out a serial pedophile and a wife beater both of whom were adults as a teenager instead of being an adult shooting 2 unarmed 15 year olds killing one and putting the other into critical condition after pistol whipping the kid while he was bleeding in the crashed van.
You have to prove it.
A number of forensic analysis techniques exist to show things that went down. If they threw the first punch and connected then there will be pre mortem bruising started and angle of the shot and powder residue etc etc. (Some of these were brought up in Kyle's trail BTW)
So it's ok to try and beat unconscious and potentially kill said person because they're not liberal enough?
I agree. A child with a gun they're not allowed to have panicking and murdering someone is a very big misunderstanding.
and you'd think the adults in the place would have had the sense not to start something understanding that might be the result but hey I guess some people just can't pass up the chance to beat up a child if said child symbolically represents something they dislike.
Rosenbaum was the only issue with the whole thing. If he could have simply resisted the urge to put his hands on yet another young boy or his peacemaker, Rittenhouse wouldn't have had to open fire on him. Some numbnuts in the crowd wouldn't have shouted that he just shot someone, which led to Kyle getting attacked by the group of people. Huber wouldn't have went balls deep with his board. Grosskreutz wouldn't have had his arm noodled. We'd have saved a fair bit in taxpayer money on a completely retarded trial. Two people wouldn't be dead and Gaige would still have a bicep.
There were indeed three victims that night, but Rosenbaum sure as shit wasn't one of em. His actions led directly to the death of an innocent person who, to my understanding (which is admittedly still rather limited and obviously has no input from the deceased), thought he was doing his best to stop a murderer at best, or potential mass shooter at worst.
Last edited:
I agree. None of this would have happened if Rittenhouse didn't illegally acquire a gun, break curfew, and start shooting.
Not one shooting would have taken place if Rittenhouse, the illegal shooter, was there with an illegal weapon, to shoot.
This exact specific shooting wouldn't have happened if Kyle was not armed, but considering what was already going down? Can't possibly say in all honesty that there's zero chance other shots wouldn't have popped off. Hell, you can clearly hear other shots in the background of several clips.
But I also can't say i'd be comfy blaming the victim, which is Rittenhouse. If Rosenbaum hadn't attacked him, the shooting would not have taken place. You'd then just have Kyle and the alleged firearm charges. You wanna argue on that? Fine by me, even if i consider it a load of shit. His defense of his person against an incredibly unstable individual is indisputable.
You want to keep victim blaming, that's your prerogative my man. As far as I'm concerned, case is closed. Kyle got the Not Guilty and I wish nothing but the best for the lad. He's a victim of Rosenbaum striking again and the media waging a war on his very being. Seems he wants to move on and forget this ever happened as best he can, and I hope he gets to.
Last edited:
In the same way that someone stops a domestic abuser or rapist with a firearm, yes. But usually we consider this self-defense and don't, you know, call the victim a murderer or say they 'caused' a shooting. Like, that's just dumb. But I've dropped in my two cents and about all the sanity I'm willing to give what this place has turned into, so y'all have fun going around in circles about this. Nobody is ever going to change their position on this subject, if that hasn't been made clear already after 41 goddamn pages and eight hundred motherfucking replies.
Save your collective sanity and agree to disagree. Please. This shit isn't healthy for anyone.
He had a sit down with Tucker Carlson and a meeting with Donald Trump. Pretty sure he's not a "moving on" type
He's clearly expressed his desire to distance himself from crazies and just wants to take a break. If he does, godspeed to him.
No Rosenbaum would have still likely cause it but with a different person shooting him.
There's that old saying about actions speaking louder than words, and engaging with Carlson, Trump and other divisive right wingers is the opposite of "taking a break" and "distancing" himself.
- Feb 13, 2009
- 161
- 33
- 33
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Does it really matter?
Having lurked here and followed the trial in the news I am of the opinion that if Rittenhouse was there to provide first aid/medical support, then if he really needed something to potentially defend himself with he should have opted for a pistol that could have easily been concealed or does not draw the eye away from the medical kit.
When you are carrying a medical kit and a rifle, people are only going to see the rifle.
When you hear shots and see someone with a gun in front of someone dead on the ground, you have no idea if the shooter just acted in self-defense or has genuinely just murdered someone and is a potential mass shooter in the making. You can only go with what you see in front of you.
When you are carrying a medical kit and a rifle, people are only going to see the rifle.
And here is the whole fallacy over the 'good people with guns' and 'self-defense' arguments.
When you hear shots and see someone with a gun in front of someone dead on the ground, you have no idea if the shooter just acted in self-defense or has genuinely just murdered someone and is a potential mass shooter in the making. You can only go with what you see in front of you.
I am reviewing. I'm not sure it would have been legal for him to carry a handgun.
Even so, handguns are a problem too. They are responsible for more criminal deaths in the US than are rifles. As a concealed weapon, there is something sneaky and dangerous about them too. A rifle says, "back off or I will kill you". A concealed handgun? If you decide you are going to engage in a murderous attack on someone with such a handgun, there is nothing warning you to back off. You wouldn't even know it is there.
Sometime, not in this case, but sometimes, a show of strength can avoid a fight by keeping it from starting in the first place.
EDIT: I do not think it would have been legal for Rittenhouse to have carried a handgun. It was legal to carry the rifle as long as it did not have a shorter than legal barrel, which his AR 15 was not.
Gun laws in Wisconsin - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
So you're just happy to assume the dead would have committed some heinous act if Rittenhouse weren't there. Even though the only deaths that night were those shot by Rittenhouse.
We can assume guilt of the dead, then? The legal standard doesn't apply?
Last edited:
Yeah I just couldn't resist coming back for this one.
Though again, there's more ways to handle a situation than just mag dumping. Alright, now I'm ou-
Not an exclusive thing with firearms, and also not the default outcome. Nice case in Texas demonstrates what a bit of vigilance and marksmanship can give you.
Though again, there's more ways to handle a situation than just mag dumping. Alright, now I'm ou-
Actually I was assuming Kyle would still be there but not armed. But considering how Rosenbaum was acting leading up to the encounter? Yes, I firmly believe that he would have been just as stupid with somebody else.
I'm just going with the bald child rapist on camera shouting gamer words at people, demanding them to shoot him, and then chasing down a 17 year old and then attempting to assault him. Last I checked, half the people in this thread were doing the same, just against Kyle. Even after a Not Guilty verdict, so there you go.