Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[#-3]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's different. You can't carry a gun openly into a Walmart so that would cause alarm. Like you have to wear shoes.

Makes sense, a 17 year old crossing state lines with a riffle in order to participate in some vigilante self deputized policing, and intimidate people he has decided are breaking the law. That's exactly the type of behaviour we are looking for.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by #-3

Makes sense, a 17 year old crossing state lines with a riffle in order to participate in some vigilante self deputized policing, and intimidate people he has decided are breaking the law. That's exactly the type of behaviour we are looking for.

He didn't cross state lines with a gun.

There is no evidence he intimated anyone.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by #-3

Makes sense, a 17 year old crossing state lines with a riffle in order to participate in some vigilante self deputized policing, and intimidate people he has decided are breaking the law. That's exactly the type of behaviour we are looking for.

This is what happens when the police abandon their duty to protect and people watched their city burn. People were sick of watching their businesses and livelihood destroyed and rightfully stood up (agree they shouldn't have had to). The police being cowards that summer, the rioters for rioting over nothing, and the media for fanning the flames are the ultimate folks to blame.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

People are saying he is responsible for the assaults on him. If there is a distinction between that and saying he deserved it, it's not an important one.

People saying he shares the responsibility for what happened is not saying he deserved it. Stating there isn't an important distinction between degrees of responsibility and 'deserves' is disingenuine.

[combustiblefuel]

Christ why does anyone bother after Bolevi enters a thread ?

Typicql tread killer and one post away from Hail Hitler when it comes to anything race relations.

Like really stop feeding a troll.
As letterkeney would say " give your balls a tug"

You people are literally just feeding a troll who never posts unless it's to argue.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Christ why does anyone bother after Bolevi enters a thread ?

Typicql tread killer and one post away from Hail Hitler when it comes to anything race relations.

Like really stop feeding a troll.
As letterkeney would say " give your balls a tug"

You people are literally just feeding a troll who never posts unless it's to argue.

Don't forget Ducay describing protesters who were protesting the indiscriminate killings of black Americans across the USA as "rioting over nothing".

[Wastedyouth]

Ooof. This thread...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I think I’ve eaten at that restaurant Yamer was talking about. Food was good but the service was subpar.

[corporatejay]

Why does everyone talk about crossing state lines? What about crossing state lines seems so offensive to you?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why does everyone talk about crossing state lines? What about crossing state lines seems so offensive to you?

They are saying he crossed state lines with a weapon, presumably breaking the law or showing an intent to be a provocateur of some kind.

But he was handed the gun, which he was legally allowed to have, when he was in Kenosha. Not before.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Katie hears about a place called Todd's Rape & Steak Shack, located on the poorly lit side of the airport. Now, it's true that Todd's serves some pretty mean steaks, maybe the best in the state, but if you go you can expect a fair bit of raping. Certainly more so than the Denny's over on Wishart Ave.

Katie is aware that rape isn't necessarily guaranteed, but it's highly possible. It's a complaint littering the Yelp reviews. However, she's famished, feels like steak, and by God it's her given right to get a steak whenever and wherever she wants. Besides, she's only going there for the steak; maybe some mashed and gravy as she only really knows how to cook it from a few basic cooking courses.

Again, she's heard about all that rape going on, so to be safe she straps an AR15 over her shoulder and heads for the grill (Todd's has a clear open carry policy). She's seated, but it's a bit crowded in her area so she's asked to move to a different table. Sure enough, as soon as she gets out of the booth she is set upon by not one, not two, but three glassy-eyed rapists who are dead set on their favorite hobby. In the ensuing melee as she's trying to prevent a rape, she kills two of the assailants and wounds the other with her trusty AR.

She has the right to not be raped, even at good old Todd's. Even so, I would think even the most radical feminist is going to raise an eyebrow with some simple questions. I'm not going to put the entire onus on Katie for nearly getting raped, but in this highly relevant context I'm going to question her decision making and culpability on this particular incident of attempted rape.

I'm just being silly because I'm bored, but Rittenhouse knew he was going to Todd's. Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes. In fact, it's the primary reason he brought a rifle. If he had settled for Denny's there wouldn't be another Yelp review about rape.

That's not totally true because there were many who armed themselves hoping the rifle lone would deter the rioters to not come near their business. This probably happened 99% of the time, nothing happened.

But KR did wander around and he is probably looking for trouble. Problem is, the prosecutor did not prove this.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

race relations.

A white guy shot three white guys in self defense.

There isn't a racial component to this case.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why does everyone talk about crossing state lines? What about crossing state lines seems so offensive to you?

Probably watched too many cop/lawyer shows where they heard the term crossing state lines without realizing that it was attached to a crime being committed.


Also probably thinks it makes it more "pre-mediated" and implies a long distance, even though it was shorter than some commutes in Calgary.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Don't forget Ducay describing protesters who were protesting the indiscriminate killings of black Americans across the USA as "rioting over nothing".

I'm not gonna touch the "indiscriminate killing" aspect as that is a whole other debate in and of itself. Sure there are some big issues with the police & race, but these riots were in response to the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha - which was justified. Blake was a POS and cops weren't charged in this case - rightfully. Blake was accosting a victim who he had abused and sexually assaulted, ignored a restraining order, then drew a knife on police and attempted to steal a car with a child inside. There is a reason that no charges on the police came from that shooting.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that you can simultaneously hold the view that a person has a right not to be assaulted and also recognize that a person who is a victim of a crime can nonetheless be more or less culpable for having put themselves in the position they found themselves in when a crime was committed against them. I don't think you should go around hitting Klan members in the head with baseball bats for publicly stating their atrocious beliefs, but I would have significantly less sympathy for them if that happens than I would for some random person minding their own business getting a Louisville slugger to the temple. This isn't particularly difficult to understand, especially since it's exactly the same logic that's been applied throughout the entire thread to the people that Rittenhouse shot.

Which isn't to say that Pepsifree is making much sense either with the "if you have a loaded gun your intent is to shoot someone with it" logic... that equally fails to appreciate the obvious difference between going out hoping to provoke someone to attack you so that you get to shoot them and don't have to go to jail for it, and going out hoping to avoid any and all altercations by having a visible deadly weapon on the basis that people generally won't mess with someone toting an AR15. That said, I legitimately don't know which of those two mindsets describes Rittenhouse accurately, but I've decided not to care.

EDIT: People need to calm the #### down though with their "poster XYZ is just a racist" and "this guy is one post away from saying heil hitler" stuff though, that's garbage.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that you can simultaneously hold the view that a person has a right not to be assaulted and also recognize that a person who is a victim of a crime can nonetheless be more or less culpable for having put themselves in the position they found themselves in when a crime was committed against them. I don't think you should go around hitting Klan members in the head with baseball bats for publicly stating their atrocious beliefs, but I would have significantly less sympathy for them if that happens than I would for some random person minding their own business getting a Louisville slugger to the temple. This isn't particularly difficult to understand, especially since it's exactly the same logic that's been applied throughout the entire thread to the people that Rittenhouse shot.

Which isn't to say that Pepsifree is making much sense either with the "if you have a loaded gun your intent is to shoot someone with it" logic... that equally fails to appreciate the obvious difference between going out hoping to provoke someone to attack you so that you get to shoot them and don't have to go to jail for it, and going out hoping to avoid any and all altercations by having a visible deadly weapon on the basis that people generally won't mess with someone toting an AR15. That said, I legitimately don't know which of those two mindsets describes Rittenhouse accurately, but I've decided not to care.

EDIT: People need to calm the #### down though with their "poster XYZ is just a racist" and "this guy is one post away from saying heil hitler" stuff though, that's garbage.

Rittenhouse has said multiple times that he wishes he had never gone to Kenosha.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Ducay

This is what happens when the police abandon their duty to protect and people watched their city burn. People were sick of watching their businesses and livelihood destroyed and rightfully stood up (agree they shouldn't have had to). The police being cowards that summer, the rioters for rioting over nothing, and the media for fanning the flames are the ultimate folks to blame.

What ####ing fantasy land do you live in where it's only OK to be worried about these things when they come from one side, where right wing extremist have a death tole hundreds the size, there are bombings, mass shootings, insurrections, lynchings, attempted political assassination, plots to poison enter cities, all perpetrated by a loose organization of right wing extremists. And yet the second we see other groups get out of hand, lets call in anyone aspiring to be one of these lunatics, tell them they would be protecting people by cosplaying military, then acting surprised when someone untrained showing up to a conflict waving a riffle in peoples faces garners poor results.

This was predictable, it was incited by the people who showed up with guns, the real threat are the guys out there killing people, those two groups just happen to be the same people.

I don't know what is / isn't legal in the state, but whatever it is failing to seriously reprimand this kid is not civil. You guys basically look like the people who cheered the the acquittal of OJ because a black guy finally got off. It's a bad look, it's wrong, and you're laying your own personal biases out there a little to much for all of us to see.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

A white guy shot three white guys in self defense.

There isn't a racial component to this case.

If a black person did what this guy did, there’s zero chance of acquittal.

Zero.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If a black person did what this guy did, there’s zero chance of acquittal.

Zero.

You pontificating on the state of race relations in the American justice system doesn't give this particular case a racial component.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If a black person did what this guy did, there’s zero chance of acquittal.

Zero.

Even if I accept your premises, is your position injustice for all then?