Rittenhouse: Judge rules people he shot can't be victims but they can be called arsonists or looters
I'm sure political leanings will guide responses and common sense will go out the window. However, the people shot are not on trial and unless there is concrete evidence they were looting and burning stuff why the discrepancy? If the dead can't be called victims then nothing should go, correct?
BTW - this kid will be found guilty of something so let's not even go there with the "he was simply defending himself!"
Replies to: Rittenhouse: Judge rules people he shot can't be victims but they can be called arsonists or looters
I hate that little bastard
He's tarnished the Rittenhouse name.
Absolutely divine in my Old Fashioneds.
That's fair enough... how do you feel about the dudes who wanted to kill him?
(no message)
Not sure you’ll like my answer
That little turd is not a hero, or a patriot or a defender of anything. He’s a twisted little fuck who purposely placed himself, armed, in a situation where he absolutely should not have been.
He was not threatened. He was safe. Yet he chose to anoint himself a savior when he proceeded to the site. Nobody was asking for his help, other than his similarly brain damaged ‘patriots’.
It is so bizarre to me that an underaged person with no authority nor right to carry a firearm can simply waltz into a conflict, kill people and then claim self defense. It’s like a child who murders his parents and then begs for mercy because he’s an orphan.
The rioters deserve no pass whatsoever. They weren’t out for social justice; they were out for mayhem and looting.
But they didn’t deserve to lose their lives.
I agree with this, well stated.
(no message)
In a self defense case, it’s common not to allow the victim designation. Not so sure about that
other one. Even if they were looters or arsonists, they can’t be killed for that reason. Seems like an inflammatory ruling.
As pointed out though he may be trying to protect the record, so if there is a conviction, the appellate issues will be limited.
Yep. The restriction on “victims” is not peculiar to him.
(no message)
Judges try to protect the record. Good lawyers can easily manage the labels. In any event ....
This particular judge is not one for coddling defendants.
He was defending himself?
He showed up to a protest with a weapon introducing himself to be part of a town militia protecting the town. He has altercations with
some of the protesters - they chase him, he kills two of them while wounding another. Sounds to me like he created
the circumstances of his own liking. Show up with a gun antagonize some protesters and then use it.
Not to forget, he went to another town, not one he lives in, with a weapon. Why bring a weapon? Most likely to use it.
Let's talk about the police in the town who did nothing but encourage these militia people carrying weapons. They appear
to be culpable in these deaths - they gave heart and encouragement to these militia types and one of them took them up on it.
Two died because they allowed weapons to be carried into a volatile situation.
Of course he had the gun for the purpose of using it. That's why you carry a gun.
I don't see the problem.
He had an illegally purchased rifle that he took across state lines to get involved in a protest/
riot that he had no personal interest in other than to confront those involved. But yeah, the rifle was just for self defense.
Now hold on, according to your own standard you were not on that street during the incident.
Therefore you can render no judgment nor opinion on the matter. Let's be consistent here. A stretch I know, but let's try.
He's leaving out the fact that rioters were armed
(no message)
No he's not forgetting that - were any of those protesters charged with harming others?
Using weapons to injure the militia that were there?
And just so you know, the discussion is about Kyle Rittenhouse and his killing of two protesters and the injuring of another
when he shot them with his own gun that he brought to the protests that evening having traveled from outside the town.
It seems reasonable to use a gun to defend yourself.
(no message)
Especially if you bring a gun to a volatile situation where two sides of a protest could clash.
That would definitely be defending oneself.
Help create an opportunity to use a gun. Then use it. What could be better than that?
I guess those without a gun should not have attacked him.
(no message)
Or maybe you don't introduce guns into tense situations where emotions are running high
I mean, maybe that type of escalation can be lethal. Do you think?
Like I posted, he created the circumstance where he was then able to discharge his weapon
and he was abetted by the local and state police when they did nothing to discourage
people from arming themselves while at the protest. In fact they encouraged him and the rest of the gun
toting crowd.
Or you don't chase down a guy with a gun when you don't have one...
(no message)
You really need to listen to the judge. The idiots he killed were not protesters
Or victims. They are to be called, rioters, arsonists or looters.
Oh, I get it, if the judge says some were there not as protesters they are now open targets
for all the gun nutties to shoot.
See I missed that point.
From now on, whenever there are shitheads in a band of protesters, I should bring my rifle and start picking off
those I think are there in bad faith.
Good one! I didn't know this.
Well, if you take out a convicted sexual predator like Kyle did, I’ll give you a pat
On the back and say good job.
Per what documented fact? Seems about right this is the type of dude you support
(no message)
Link: Rittenhouse flashing white power at a bar
Here is what the judge said. I know you don’t like it but I don’t think the judge
Do not bother to respond to her, intelligence lacking.
(no message)
Oh, but it’s fun using her own words against her. She gets all upset.
(no message)
You get butthurt, start crying all over your replies and then use ad hominems like 'her' thinking
you scored one for the degenerates. Guess what though? You're still butthurt in the end.
Thank you for proving my point.
(no message)
A completely useless sub-thread
Sophomoric name-calling, no substance whatsoever. TampaIrish, Quest4twelve and notredame678 -- this is unacceptable.
Does anyone deny that prosecutors have always had political motivations?
For years they seemed to favor the police.
Now there seems to be a tendency to favor criminals.
No?
Link: https://news.yahoo.com/not-charging-crime-two-san-171400975.html
Always no. In some cases, yes.
(no message)
My bad. You are correct. I should have phrased it better.
(no message)
How does this relate to Kyle Rittenhouse?
(no message)
And why does Soros bankroll their campaigns?
(no message)
Link: https://news.yahoo.com/not-charging-crime-two-san-171400975.html
.
(no message)
Seems like the point of this trial is to determine who should be called a victim.
If the jury says it was self defense, then he was the victim. And vice-versa.
Then why be able to call the dead arsonist or looters? Where is the facts you know the thing
law is based on. Has to go both ways, no?
Defense can only call them that if they provide evidence that they looted or started fires.
It is not presumed that the dead guys were looters or arsonists.
Good. It's accurate.
(no message)
He seems like your kinda guy.
Can they call Kyle, their jury and executioner?
(no message)
I would call him incredible stupid and very lucky to be alive.
(no message)
I wonder if he would be prosecuted if he'd shot a January 6th protester?
(no message)
It cracks me up you have to contort your thinking like a pretzel to answer the question
What does Jan 6th have to do with a 17 yo vigilante going across state with a rifle?
I guess it's impossible for an NPC to think beyond his or her or whatever's programming.
(no message)
He should be unless in self defense or defense of others under immediate threat of death or serious
bodily harm.
P.S. He would be much more likely to be a rioter than to shoot one on 1/6.
But at least he would be charged and stand trial...no?
(no message)
Not necessarily. Particularly with law enforcement, clear cases of self defense or
defense of others aren’t criminally prosecuted. Same with civilians.
Well, they were rioting and burning shit so it sounds right on time me.
I hope he gets off in self defense. All he did was rid this world of some garbage.
Color me shocked on your response. So smart guy how do they prove
the 3 people he shot were burning and looting?
Don’t know and really don’t care. All I know is he took out a couple of
Jerkoffs. Kid is hero.
Just like the cop who shot that crazed Ashli Babbit.
(no message)
Ok. If that makes you feel better. Me, I don’t care either way. But that cop
Only shot one. Kyle got 2 and wounded another. He wins. And not sure how you tied 1/6 to this. I mean, you just scolded someone above for doing it. You just love different rules for yourself. Typical, sad ass Liberal.
Please go be a cry baby somewhere else or put me on ignore, seriously!
(no message)
Someone being a little Sally Sensitive today. Man, this is fun using your own lines
On you,
And another useless sub-thread
Gentlemen -- if you don't do better there will be suspensions.