Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[jj22]

(10-27-2021, 11:27 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: IIRC, him and others were trying to protect businesses from being looted. I'm not 100% sure and since I'm at work I really don't want to go article searching. The police were pretty busy and needed all the help they could get. Nothing conspiracy here and nothing wrong at all. If you were a policeman you probably would have thanked them too. And what's wrong with giving a guy water? 

So police need teens to bring their guns across state lines to come help and kill people? 

Do you think if he was a black teen that would be the "excuse". 

Not sure what this says about our law enforcement that they need teens to come with their guns to help during protests. I mean are these teens trained in riot defense and protests? Is this like the SS Panzer Tank Division with the majority of its recruits being 16- and 17-year-old boys from the Hitler Youth brigades? This shouldn't be acceptable or excusable.

But this goes back to race, no black kid would be allowed to come across state lines with their military grade weapon to help police (and kill) with protests. Even if they were attacked while instigating and acting like they were some authorities figure. No protesters were going to listen to him.

[*Nately120*]

(10-27-2021, 11:27 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: IIRC, him and others were trying to protect businesses from being looted. I'm not 100% sure and since I'm at work I really don't want to go article searching. The police were pretty busy and needed all the help they could get. Nothing conspiracy here and nothing wrong at all. If you were a policeman you probably would have thanked them too. And what's wrong with giving a guy water? 

I'm not in law enforcement, but I don't think the police are supposed to be overly thankful of citizens who open fire in crowded areas.  They probably should not be outwardly thankful or express gratitude, even if they internally feel that way.  Seems like a dangerous policy to turn self-appointed defenders of property into heroes.  

But again, this goes back to the muddy defense of gun violence and justification.  You never hear about how many gang members successfully exercise their rights to self-defense on the south side of Chicago every day.  That's never held up as proof that guns make people safe and make this country great.

[jj22]

(10-27-2021, 11:33 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: You have never saw any post from me concerning Ashli. Nor do you have any idea about my feelings on the capitol riot.

So there is no need for veiled insults.

I never quoted you. What makes you think I was talking about you specifically with that post? 

But the point remains, those who defend Kyle have claimed Ashli was a victim and it does highlight how politics now defines victimhood for some.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2021, 11:27 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: IIRC, him and others were trying to protect businesses from being looted. I'm not 100% sure and since I'm at work I really don't want to go article searching. The police were pretty busy and needed all the help they could get. Nothing conspiracy here and nothing wrong at all. If you were a policeman you probably would have thanked them too. And what's wrong with giving a guy water? 

Without checking I think he WENT there to "protect businesses", I don't know that he was doing that at the time.

That's why I said he got in over his head in a situation he never should have been in in the first place, IMHO.

The idea with the water video was that it was showing he had a frame of mind that it was okay to shoot "rioters" because the police needed his help.  That's why the judge rejected it.

My personal opinion is that the police should have sent anyone with a gun home to avoid any kind of altercation no matter if they were on "their side" or not.  Guys like Rittenhouse did nothing to calm or police the situation.  

Now if we WANT to hire private citizens or form citizen posses that can be discussed, but just showing up armed and ready to "defend" something seems to me would cause more confusion than help.  

And again, that doesn't make it illegal...just not "right" as far as I'm concerned.

[*Nately120*]

(10-27-2021, 11:39 AM)jj22 Wrote: I never quoted you. What makes you think I was talking about you specifically with that post? 

But the point remains, those who defend Kyle have claimed Ashli was a victim and it does highlight how politics now defines victimhood for some.

Sometimes patriotism is shooting someone, sometimes patriotism is being shot at.  What you can count on is the people building support from this are rarely shooting or getting shot at themselves. 

[masonbengals fan]

(10-27-2021, 11:39 AM)jj22 Wrote: I never quoted you. What makes you think I was talking about you specifically with that post? 

But the point remains, those who defend Kyle have claimed Ashli was a victim and it does highlight how politics now defines victimhood for some.

You are clearly referring to Harley & I with the term "you guys" because we had a different view on this as you. 

At least it appears that way.

[jj22]

(10-27-2021, 11:41 AM)GMDino Wrote:  but just showing up armed and ready to "defend" something seems to me would cause more confusion than help.  

Out of state over state lines mind you. It's not like he was a member of the community invested in the community. 

Either way this would have never been acceptable if he was a black teenage male. 

[GMDino]

(10-27-2021, 11:45 AM)jj22 Wrote: Out of state over state lines mind you. It's not like he was a member of the community invested in the community. 

Either way this would have never been acceptable if he was a black teenage male. 

It would have been seen as different if a 17/18 year old black male was open carrying that night.  No doubt about it.

And yes, he never should have been there either.

[jj22]

Our Law enforcement agencies becoming the GOP Getapo is fine and dandy now for some, but if/when the tides turn I wonder if folks will feel the same if liberals owned the police force and we saw them taking people out to dinner after killing conservatives.

[HarleyDog]

(10-27-2021, 11:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: The idea with the water video was that it was showing he had a frame of mind that it was okay to shoot "rioters" because the police needed his help.  That's why the judge rejected it.

That's an extremely far reaching opinion. The kid did not want to shoot anyone. Heck, he was trying to turn himself in. The police didn't arrest him right away because they didn't even know what he had done. His weapon was lowered hanging from the strap as he walked with both hands in the air trying to let them know what happened and to turn himself in.

For what it's worth (which is very little) I believe the kid had some sort of police training and his goal was to become an officer. Yet, he was not an officer which is why it means very little. As for being in over his head? Yes, I think he was. His intentions were in the right place to try and protect businesses but should not have held a rifle. If he thought being armed was safer (which I would probably think that as well) then he should have taken a pistol and concealed it unless absolutely necessary. The rifle drew attention.

[HarleyDog]

(10-27-2021, 11:49 AM)jj22 Wrote: Our Law enforcement agencies becoming the GOP Getapo is fine and dandy now for some, but if/when the tides turn I wonder if folks will feel the same if liberals owned the police force and we saw them taking people out to dinner after killing conservatives.

Sigh.

[BigPapaKain]

The same country charging a woman with manslaughter for having a miscarriage doesn't want to prosecute a kid who was in a place he shouldn't have been with a gun he shouldn't have had for killing people of a different political ideology.

Shocker.

[jj22]

(10-27-2021, 11:56 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: That's an extremely far reaching opinion. The kid did not want to shoot anyone. 

He just crossed state lines with his military grade weapon and instigated conflict with protesters for the sake of it. Riiight.

[jj22]

(10-27-2021, 11:57 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Sigh.

Why the sigh? They ushered in people chanting kill Nancy like a school tour, took selfies with them and watched them kill even fellow officers who must not have been Republicans and tried to hold their ground. 

1/6 was an eye opener as to how the police react to their fellow party protesting vs how they were ready for BLM protests that didn't even try to breach the capitol. 

Pictures and video comparing the two "protests" should alarm all as to the difference in how our law enforcement approaches people of different political views. It really is an amazing contrast that maybe history has to show for people to see. Hard for those who live through it and share their political views to see in real time.

Never forget how they waived them in and opened doors for them as they searched for Nancy and other Dems to kill (and Pence to be fair).

[HarleyDog]

(10-27-2021, 12:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: He just crossed state lines with his military grade weapon and instigated conflict with protesters for the sake of it. Riiight.

No, he didn't.

[jj22]

I may have come across too political and cause some defensiveness, so I'll just say and leave it as such that we have to be very careful accepting things that we think is fine because we are in the "cool crowd" of the moment. One day the tide will turn and it won't be so fun. That is why it is always important to stand for right and wrong regardless of who it benefits. It's why 1/6 should be taken very seriously. Yea, there are those who applaud it and think it's fine, but what will happen when/if Biden loses, will those same people be fine with an attack on the capitol? Killing of a police officer, and watching officers who can't take the ideal that their party turned on them, and have committed suicide because of selling their soul to the GOP just to watch them slam them and not support them after the riots.

The loss of big picture views to defend American and her democracy will be where historians will point to the downfall of this great country. It's why the Nazi's had so much success (those who weren't jews didn't care because they (wrongly) thought they weren't coming for them at the time and thus stood idly by as Nazi's marched through their town and rounded up jews, just to find it not so funny when they came back to round up the sick, disabled, elderly etc)

[jj22]

(10-27-2021, 12:24 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: No, he didn't.

But he did. He was in their faces and throwing insults, being aggressive and acting big and bad (now we know why with his loaded weapon - when they were unarmed). 

What are they selling you? That he was there passing out candy, and got attacked? He came for conflict. Went out of his way for conflict, and prepared for conflict/murder.

[Au165]

Beyond the “victim” motion, the other motions the judge has refused are a bit concerning. The bar photo is understandable, however denying the prosecutions ability to submit as evidence Rittenhouse mentioning on video weeks earlier that he wished he could have shown up and shot looters at a CVS is pretty awful. It shows he wanted to insert himself as a savior and went there with a desire to do such.

[jj22]

Because he crossed state lines to murder, this should have been a federal prosecution. So much corruption is taking place. What is sad is they don't even try to hide it anymore in this politically charged environment.

[HarleyDog]

(10-27-2021, 01:18 PM)jj22 Wrote: Because he crossed state lines to murder, this should have been a federal prosecution. So much corruption is taking place. What is sad is they don't even try to hide it anymore in this politically charged environment.

According to this article. He did not carry a weapon across state lines. That weapon was bought, stored and carried in Wisconsin. Not real relevant to the story as a whole, but you mentioned it a few times so I thought I would try to find something on it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/10/14/923643265/kyle-rittenhouse-accused-kenosha-killer-wont-face-gun-charges-in-illinois