TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: DM_Curt on November 09, 2021, 04:01:58 PM

Title: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: DM_Curt on November 09, 2021, 04:01:58 PM
Last update, the prosecution's witness Grosskreutz (sp?) admitted that he first drew on Rittenhouse, making the self-defense case.
Grosskreutz being a convicted felon for Burglary, not being in legal possession of the handgun he was photographed with at the scene.

Any guesses to outcome?
Full acquittal?
Minor, state level charges to keep the rioters from burning down the town?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 09, 2021, 07:26:10 PM
It's like an episode of Arrested Development in real life!

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: DM_Curt on November 09, 2021, 07:37:57 PM
It's like an episode of Arrested Development in real life!
Or an episode of Futurama with the chicken lawyer.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 09, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Legal Insurrection's coverage of Day 5 was devastating:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-5-alleged-victim-gaige-grosskreutz-implodes-admits-had-glock-pointed-at-kyle-when-shot-lied-to-police-about-it/

Since everything's looking positive, based on my faith in the system, I fully expect Rittenhouse will be convicted on all accounts and summarily executed, and then his body will be thrown to the People's Revolution.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 09, 2021, 08:41:45 PM
De Bruin testimony is a hoot...  Within the first 10 seconds he makes the prosecution look like the scumbags they are.  And it just gets better after that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3dn_ui2Vw
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 09, 2021, 09:14:10 PM
De Bruin testimony is a hoot...  Within the first 10 seconds he makes the prosecution look like the scumbags they are.  And it just gets better after that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3dn_ui2Vw

Do you object to the adversarial system of justice?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 09, 2021, 09:18:09 PM
De Bruin testimony is a hoot...  Within the first 10 seconds he makes the prosecution look like the scumbags they are.  And it just gets better after that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3dn_ui2Vw

Do you object to the adversarial system of justice?

You obviously failed to understand the point - that the prosecution is grasping at straws - their case has disintegrated when vaporized bicep guy confirmed that Rittenhouse fired in self defense.  De Bruin's cross confirmed that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 09, 2021, 09:20:42 PM
Legal Insurrection's coverage of Day 5 was devastating:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-5-alleged-victim-gaige-grosskreutz-implodes-admits-had-glock-pointed-at-kyle-when-shot-lied-to-police-about-it/

Since everything's looking positive, based on my faith in the system, I fully expect Rittenhouse will be convicted on all accounts and summarily executed, and then his body will be thrown to the People's Revolution.

I'm surprised the judge hasn't already declared the need for a directed verdict - but he seems like an actual independent judge rather than a political grandstander, so maybe he's been letting them persecution continue digging their hole...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 09, 2021, 09:40:15 PM
De Bruin testimony is a hoot...  Within the first 10 seconds he makes the prosecution look like the scumbags they are.  And it just gets better after that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3dn_ui2Vw

Do you object to the adversarial system of justice?

You obviously failed to understand the point - that the prosecution is grasping at straws - their case has disintegrated when vaporized bicep guy confirmed that Rittenhouse fired in self defense.  De Bruin's cross confirmed that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct.

How does doing their utmost to make a case for the prosecution make the attorneys in question "scumbags"?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 09, 2021, 10:44:32 PM
I suspect the jury will find him guilty of the underage possession charge, but that’s it. Since he has no priors I doubt he’ll get much or any prison time. However, I’m not a lawyer in any way, just a rando spouting an opinion.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 09, 2021, 11:07:07 PM
Last update, the prosecution's witness Grosskreutz (sp?) admitted that he first drew on Rittenhouse, making the self-defense case.
Grosskreutz being a convicted felon for Burglary, not being in legal possession of the handgun he was photographed with at the scene.

Any guesses to outcome?
Full acquittal?
Minor, state level charges to keep the rioters from burning down the town?

Guilty of being a naughty boy. Execution by Antifa throwing frozen milkshakes at him. Riots ensue anyway because capitalism is bad.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 09, 2021, 11:40:28 PM
I suspect the jury will find him guilty of the underage possession charge, but that’s it. Since he has no priors I doubt he’ll get much or any prison time. However, I’m not a lawyer in any way, just a rando spouting an opinion.
I wouldn't.

Three of the many travesties of the US "justice" system are the overwhelmingly all-encompassing and numerous laws that ensure that everyone breaks some law every day; the way prosecutors, instead of finding the law that most fits the situation, find all the laws that might be vaguely relevant, and then stack them all up like cordwood in the hopes that at least one catches fire; and that being charged, processed, and tried is itself a very serious punishment.

It's bad enough when they include all the different varieties of murder and manslaughter in a list of charges, but it becomes ridiculous when, tacked on at the end of the long list, there's some truly minor technical violation. If you cast someone as this horrible criminal, dragged them through court, and couldn't prove your case, a conviction on a minor offense is just adding insult to injury. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of punishing them again.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 07:26:33 AM
De Bruin testimony is a hoot...  Within the first 10 seconds he makes the prosecution look like the scumbags they are.  And it just gets better after that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3dn_ui2Vw

Do you object to the adversarial system of justice?

You obviously failed to understand the point - that the prosecution is grasping at straws - their case has disintegrated when vaporized bicep guy confirmed that Rittenhouse fired in self defense.  De Bruin's cross confirmed that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct.

How does doing their utmost to make a case for the prosecution make the attorneys in question "scumbags"?

Trying to coerce a witness to falsify an official statement by changing the contents is misconduct at the very least, and likely unlawful.  Statements given to police are official statements. When you then testify under oath and give testimony that does not match the statement given to police, you could be guilty of perjury (if you lied on the stand) or false official statement (if you lied on paper).

Here, they tried to get De Bruin to add information to his statement during an interview before the trial and he refused to do so.  During the cross, they were then incompetent enough to ask "we didn't ask you to change your statement, did we?". To which De Bruin replied "Yes, you did."

So, now you've established that you tried to get a witness to change an official statement to aid your prosecution and now you were dumb enough to have them confirm you did it under oath.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 07:40:58 AM
I suspect the jury will find him guilty of the underage possession charge, but that’s it. Since he has no priors I doubt he’ll get much or any prison time. However, I’m not a lawyer in any way, just a rando spouting an opinion.

I don't necessarily know.  IANAL also, but it appears that Sec 948.60  (underage possession) only applies if he was in violation of 948.28 which is a short-barrelled weapon.  Given that the weapon he is reported to have been armed with is a DPMS Oracle .223, it's legal at 16" barrel length.

"(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28."

The ss 29.304 and .593 are with regard to those under age 16 and to those seeing a hunting license.  Neither of which is applicable.

Unless there is some way to twist the law, this looks like a loophole since they don't issue license to hunt antifa scum.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 10, 2021, 07:51:28 AM
I suspect the jury will find him guilty of the underage possession charge, but that’s it. Since he has no priors I doubt he’ll get much or any prison time. However, I’m not a lawyer in any way, just a rando spouting an opinion.
I wouldn't.

Three of the many travesties of the US "justice" system are the overwhelmingly all-encompassing and numerous laws that ensure that everyone breaks some law every day; the way prosecutors, instead of finding the law that most fits the situation, find all the laws that might be vaguely relevant, and then stack them all up like cordwood in the hopes that at least one catches fire; and that being charged, processed, and tried is itself a very serious punishment.

It's bad enough when they include all the different varieties of murder and manslaughter in a list of charges, but it becomes ridiculous when, tacked on at the end of the long list, there's some truly minor technical violation. If you cast someone as this horrible criminal, dragged them through court, and couldn't prove your case, a conviction on a minor offense is just adding insult to injury. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of punishing them again.
You may not, but I think the Jury will. I suspect they will feel a lot of pressure, even if that pressure is self-inflicted, to find Rittenhouse guilty of something. Safety charges are a thing because they often work. The question from the OP as I understood it was along the lines of what does one think will happen, not what should happen.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 07:54:54 AM
I suspect the jury will find him guilty of the underage possession charge, but that’s it. Since he has no priors I doubt he’ll get much or any prison time. However, I’m not a lawyer in any way, just a rando spouting an opinion.
I wouldn't.

Three of the many travesties of the US "justice" system are the overwhelmingly all-encompassing and numerous laws that ensure that everyone breaks some law every day; the way prosecutors, instead of finding the law that most fits the situation, find all the laws that might be vaguely relevant, and then stack them all up like cordwood in the hopes that at least one catches fire; and that being charged, processed, and tried is itself a very serious punishment.

It's bad enough when they include all the different varieties of murder and manslaughter in a list of charges, but it becomes ridiculous when, tacked on at the end of the long list, there's some truly minor technical violation. If you cast someone as this horrible criminal, dragged them through court, and couldn't prove your case, a conviction on a minor offense is just adding insult to injury. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of punishing them again.
You may not, but I think the Jury will. I suspect they will feel a lot of pressure, even if that pressure is self-inflicted, to find Rittenhouse guilty of something. Safety charges are a thing because they often work. The question from the OP as I understood it was along the lines of what does one think will happen, not what should happen.

It's a funny thing - Wisconsin has some leftist craziness, but many Wisconsinites, regardless of political leaning, are rural hunters who believe in gun rights and believe in self defense. Kenosha is in that area of Wisconsin that swung to the right between 2012 and 2016. It may depend upon who amongst the jury has the most sway, but we've already seen the judge toss potential problem jurors.  Or course, if the judge orders a directed verdict, there's not much they can say about it.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 10, 2021, 07:57:04 AM
De Bruin testimony is a hoot...  Within the first 10 seconds he makes the prosecution look like the scumbags they are.  And it just gets better after that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3dn_ui2Vw

Do you object to the adversarial system of justice?

You obviously failed to understand the point - that the prosecution is grasping at straws - their case has disintegrated when vaporized bicep guy confirmed that Rittenhouse fired in self defense.  De Bruin's cross confirmed that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct.

How does doing their utmost to make a case for the prosecution make the attorneys in question "scumbags"?
Suborning perjury and possibly concealing exculpatory evidence (remember, the detective noted that the DA's office instructed them NOT to execute the search warrant on Grosskreutz's phone) is not lawful prosecution. Sit. Down.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 08:00:59 AM
De Bruin testimony is a hoot...  Within the first 10 seconds he makes the prosecution look like the scumbags they are.  And it just gets better after that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3dn_ui2Vw

Do you object to the adversarial system of justice?

You obviously failed to understand the point - that the prosecution is grasping at straws - their case has disintegrated when vaporized bicep guy confirmed that Rittenhouse fired in self defense.  De Bruin's cross confirmed that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct.

How does doing their utmost to make a case for the prosecution make the attorneys in question "scumbags"?
Suborning perjury and possibly concealing exculpatory evidence (remember, the detective noted that the DA's office instructed them NOT to execute the search warrant on Grosskreutz's phone) is not lawful prosecution. Sit. Down.

It's also "curious" that the prosecution somehow had additional drone footage that the evidence fairy miracled up over a weekend.  The defense got the lead detective to about it wasn't conclusive, but they should have objected to his declaring pixel soup to be definitive at all.

This prosecution is a combination of incompetent and evil - perfect candidates to serve in any Dem administration.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 10, 2021, 08:37:36 AM
I suspect the jury will find him guilty of the underage possession charge, but that’s it. Since he has no priors I doubt he’ll get much or any prison time. However, I’m not a lawyer in any way, just a rando spouting an opinion.

I don't necessarily know.  IANAL also, but it appears that Sec 948.60  (underage possession) only applies if he was in violation of 948.28 which is a short-barrelled weapon.  Given that the weapon he is reported to have been armed with is a DPMS Oracle .223, it's legal at 16" barrel length.

"(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28."

The ss 29.304 and .593 are with regard to those under age 16 and to those seeing a hunting license.  Neither of which is applicable.

Unless there is some way to twist the law, this looks like a loophole since they don't issue license to hunt antifa scum.
That loophole was brought up by the defense before the trial began in an attempt to get the charge dismissed, but the judge let the charge stand. This is because judges sometimes refuse to allow “the exception to swallow the rule.” This may seem to go against the plain meaning of a law, but it is very much a thing in case law that occurs as judges try to follow the spirit of the law intended by the legislature rather than a literal reading of the law. One might not agree with this approach, but it’s the approach the judge has taken in this case. An article briefly covering this towards the bottom can be found:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/10/05/judge-kyle-rittenhouse-case-mulls-expert-witnesses-use-force/6001900001/

The judge did say he might revisit this decision, but that’s no guarantee. If it looks like all the other charges are going to result in not guilty, the judge may feel a lot of pressure to let this safety charge remain. On the other hand the judge may feel so disgusted by the prosecution’s poor effort so far that he decides to disallow the safety charge so that they get nothing.

There are sites on the internet that explain the reasoning behind judges not allowing the exception to swallow the rule, but I’ve found the explanations to be either too long to include here, too arcane for me to paraphrase or presented in a manner that I cannot copy here. In regards to the last reason I did find at Google Books a section from a book titled “Thinking Like a Lawyer: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning” that avoided the first two difficulties, but I’m unable to copy the text in question. :-( Maybe a lawyer-type person here can give a succinct explanation for why sometimes judges refuse to allow the exception to swallow the rule.

I’ll repeat what I mentioned earlier, the OP’s question was along the lines of what one thinks will happen, not should.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 10, 2021, 08:56:10 AM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 10, 2021, 09:00:26 AM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.
I’ve been doing so. He doesn’t agree with the weapon possession charge remaining, but the charge remains, and that’s why I think Rittenhouse will likely be found guilty on that charge. Maybe that’ll get appealed, but I have no clue at the moment as to what chance such an appeal would have at success.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 10, 2021, 09:03:26 AM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.
I’ve been doing so. He doesn’t agree with the weapon possession charge remaining, but the charge remains, and that’s why I think Rittenhouse will likely be found guilty on that charge. Maybe that’ll get appealed, but I have no clue at the moment as to what chance such an appeal would have at success.
Remember, the point (at least for the bad guys) is to convict Rittenhouse on the murder/attempted murder charges.

If all he gets gigged for is the weapons charge, they STILL effectively lose. Especially as the judge has expressed doubts as to the law's scope (this came up early on).

(Granted, this doesn't give Rittenhouse his lost time back, and he should sue for wrongful prosecution. Whether that has a chance in hell is... eh.)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 09:13:51 AM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.
I’ve been doing so. He doesn’t agree with the weapon possession charge remaining, but the charge remains, and that’s why I think Rittenhouse will likely be found guilty on that charge. Maybe that’ll get appealed, but I have no clue at the moment as to what chance such an appeal would have at success.
Remember, the point (at least for the bad guys) is to convict Rittenhouse on the murder/attempted murder charges.

If all he gets gigged for is the weapons charge, they STILL effectively lose. Especially as the judge has expressed doubts as to the law's scope (this came up early on).

(Granted, this doesn't give Rittenhouse his lost time back, and he should sue for wrongful prosecution. Whether that has a chance in hell is... eh.)

That the prosecution was shown as trying to get a witness to change their statement and he specifically stated that they did in testimony might be enough to draw the lawsuit for wrongful prosecution.  Regardless, over would hope that the Wisconsin Bar would have concerns over their conduct and seek to dis-bar them.

Then again, this is the way it *always* send to go: lawyer is ambitious, but not all that competent (but devious and cunning), so goes to work as prosecutor.  Make all the necessary political moves to become DA, state attorney, judge, it other ring in political ladder - all the while fucking over innocent people, ignoring police misconduct, and choosing plea deals with the actually guilty.

The truly competent who are in the prosecutors office become defense attorneys in private practice...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 10, 2021, 09:17:01 AM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.
I’ve been doing so. He doesn’t agree with the weapon possession charge remaining, but the charge remains, and that’s why I think Rittenhouse will likely be found guilty on that charge. Maybe that’ll get appealed, but I have no clue at the moment as to what chance such an appeal would have at success.
Remember, the point (at least for the bad guys) is to convict Rittenhouse on the murder/attempted murder charges.

If all he gets gigged for is the weapons charge, they STILL effectively lose. Especially as the judge has expressed doubts as to the law's scope (this came up early on).

(Granted, this doesn't give Rittenhouse his lost time back, and he should sue for wrongful prosecution. Whether that has a chance in hell is... eh.)
The Woke and pro-Antifa media will wail and gnash their teeth if Rittenhouse is only found guilty of the weapons charge. No doubt about that. Personally I think Rittenhouse actions were foolish, but none of that precludes him being able to defend himself. One thing Antifa would especially fear from Rittenhouse being found not guilty on the homocide related charges is that this would provide an real world example to others trying to protect their communities from the mobs that yes, one can use lethal force to protect oneself. They’d much rather there be a lot of ambiguity, if not outright fear among people considering resisting the mob.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 10, 2021, 09:38:17 AM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.
I’ve been doing so. He doesn’t agree with the weapon possession charge remaining, but the charge remains, and that’s why I think Rittenhouse will likely be found guilty on that charge. Maybe that’ll get appealed, but I have no clue at the moment as to what chance such an appeal would have at success.
Remember, the point (at least for the bad guys) is to convict Rittenhouse on the murder/attempted murder charges.

If all he gets gigged for is the weapons charge, they STILL effectively lose. Especially as the judge has expressed doubts as to the law's scope (this came up early on).

(Granted, this doesn't give Rittenhouse his lost time back, and he should sue for wrongful prosecution. Whether that has a chance in hell is... eh.)
The Woke and pro-Antifa media will wail and gnash their teeth if Rittenhouse is only found guilty of the weapons charge. No doubt about that. Personally I think Rittenhouse actions were foolish, but none of that precludes him being able to defend himself. One thing Antifa would especially fear from Rittenhouse being found not guilty on the homocide related charges is that this would provide an real world example to others trying to protect their communities from the mobs that yes, one can use lethal force to protect oneself. They’d much rather there be a lot of ambiguity, if not outright fear among people considering resisting the mob.
That was my take too. There's a saying: don't go to stupid places, associate with stupid people, and do stupid things.

But that's my opinion, and it certainly does not preclude self-defense. A girl who leaves the club and tries to take a shortcut down a dark alley may be foolish; it doesn't mean she should be assaulted and it doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to shoot an assailant stone dead.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 09:49:04 AM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.
I’ve been doing so. He doesn’t agree with the weapon possession charge remaining, but the charge remains, and that’s why I think Rittenhouse will likely be found guilty on that charge. Maybe that’ll get appealed, but I have no clue at the moment as to what chance such an appeal would have at success.
Remember, the point (at least for the bad guys) is to convict Rittenhouse on the murder/attempted murder charges.

If all he gets gigged for is the weapons charge, they STILL effectively lose. Especially as the judge has expressed doubts as to the law's scope (this came up early on).

(Granted, this doesn't give Rittenhouse his lost time back, and he should sue for wrongful prosecution. Whether that has a chance in hell is... eh.)
The Woke and pro-Antifa media will wail and gnash their teeth if Rittenhouse is only found guilty of the weapons charge. No doubt about that. Personally I think Rittenhouse actions were foolish, but none of that precludes him being able to defend himself. One thing Antifa would especially fear from Rittenhouse being found not guilty on the homocide related charges is that this would provide an real world example to others trying to protect their communities from the mobs that yes, one can use lethal force to protect oneself. They’d much rather there be a lot of ambiguity, if not outright fear among people considering resisting the mob.
That was my take too. There's a saying: don't go to stupid places, associate with stupid people, and do stupid things.

But that's my opinion, and it certainly does not preclude self-defense. A girl who leaves the club and tries to take a shortcut down a dark alley may be foolish; it doesn't mean she should be assaulted and it doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to shoot an assailant stone dead.

This is one of those things that *anyone* with any common sense and a sense of right and wrong understands.  Unfortunately, there are too many leftists who've led sheltered lives where mommy and daddy continue to take care of all of their needs.  These people have never had to deal with the possibility that people who commit crimes might actually not just need help and might actually just be entitled cunts.  It isn't always society's fault.  Especially in this case where the turds that Rittenhouse shot were all convicted felons who apparently didn't learn their lesson since they were involved in criminal rioting.  The best part is watching vaporized bicep guy completely try and justify his criminal behavior whilst on the stand.  You can't fix stupid.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 10, 2021, 09:50:49 AM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.
I’ve been doing so. He doesn’t agree with the weapon possession charge remaining, but the charge remains, and that’s why I think Rittenhouse will likely be found guilty on that charge. Maybe that’ll get appealed, but I have no clue at the moment as to what chance such an appeal would have at success.
Remember, the point (at least for the bad guys) is to convict Rittenhouse on the murder/attempted murder charges.

If all he gets gigged for is the weapons charge, they STILL effectively lose. Especially as the judge has expressed doubts as to the law's scope (this came up early on).

(Granted, this doesn't give Rittenhouse his lost time back, and he should sue for wrongful prosecution. Whether that has a chance in hell is... eh.)
The Woke and pro-Antifa media will wail and gnash their teeth if Rittenhouse is only found guilty of the weapons charge. No doubt about that. Personally I think Rittenhouse actions were foolish, but none of that precludes him being able to defend himself. One thing Antifa would especially fear from Rittenhouse being found not guilty on the homocide related charges is that this would provide an real world example to others trying to protect their communities from the mobs that yes, one can use lethal force to protect oneself. They’d much rather there be a lot of ambiguity, if not outright fear among people considering resisting the mob.
That was my take too. There's a saying: don't go to stupid places, associate with stupid people, and do stupid things.

But that's my opinion, and it certainly does not preclude self-defense. A girl who leaves the club and tries to take a shortcut down a dark alley may be foolish; it doesn't mean she should be assaulted and it doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to shoot an assailant stone dead.

This is one of those things that *anyone* with any common sense and a sense of right and wrong understands.  Unfortunately, there are too many leftists who've led sheltered lives where mommy and daddy continue to take care of all of their needs.  These people have never had to deal with the possibility that people who commit crimes might actually not just need help and might actually just be entitled cunts.  It isn't always society's fault.  Especially in this case where the turds that Rittenhouse shot were all convicted felons who apparently didn't learn their lesson since they were involved in criminal rioting.  The best part is watching vaporized bicep guy completely try and justify his criminal behavior whilst on the stand.  You can't fix stupid.
At this point you might as well call it 'uncommon sense', cause it sure as fuck isn't common.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 10, 2021, 10:51:22 AM
I think many in the Woke media are anticipating an acquittal on most charges. I haven’t been able to find any recent articles on the trial at Salon, Huffpost, Mother Jones or Slate. Is MSNBC the only Woke media covering the trial in any kind of detail? My reading of the other media entities lack of interest is that they want to minimize the exposure of the Rittenhouse trial since they’re expecting disappointment. Or perhaps their journalists just “can’t deal” with a successful use of self-defense.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: moonsweeper on November 10, 2021, 10:54:51 AM
I suspect the jury will find him guilty of the underage possession charge, but that’s it. Since he has no priors I doubt he’ll get much or any prison time. However, I’m not a lawyer in any way, just a rando spouting an opinion.

I don't necessarily know.  IANAL also, but it appears that Sec 948.60  (underage possession) only applies if he was in violation of 948.28 which is a short-barrelled weapon.  Given that the weapon he is reported to have been armed with is a DPMS Oracle .223, it's legal at 16" barrel length.

"(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28."

The ss 29.304 and .593 are with regard to those under age 16 and to those seeing a hunting license.  Neither of which is applicable.

Unless there is some way to twist the law, this looks like a loophole since they don't issue license to hunt antifa scum.

The reason it only applies to the SBRs is because of the way they did hunting laws in WI.  Under 18 is viewed as underage unless it is a rifle/carbine that fits their definition of hunting weapon...which the Panther does.  Then anyone 16+ can open carry it in WI.  The guy who is his attorney now did a youtube presentation and walked through all the stuff around a year or so ago, before he was involved with the case.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 10:57:01 AM
I think many in the Woke media are anticipating an acquittal on most charges. I haven’t been able to find any recent articles on the trial at Salon, Huffpost, Mother Jones or Slate. Is MSNBC the only Woke media covering the trial in any kind of detail? My reading of the other media entities lack of interest is that they want to minimize the exposure of the Rittenhouse trial since they’re expecting disappointment. Or perhaps their journalists just “can’t deal” with a successful use of self-defense.

Well, their "journalists" can't deal with reality in general... The problem with leftists is that want to force others to see the world that they want, rather than the world as it actually is.

*None* of their fucked-up opinions and wishes is anything that any sane person would want, but if they keep publishing it, they push it to become "truth." Most everyone else is, unfortunately, not paying attention when this happens to give them a back-handed bitch slap.  Those in positions of authority who should are typically corrupted to the point that they can't or won't respond in a manner that would show the ridiculousness of the left for every to see, point at and laugh.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 11:00:43 AM
I suspect the jury will find him guilty of the underage possession charge, but that’s it. Since he has no priors I doubt he’ll get much or any prison time. However, I’m not a lawyer in any way, just a rando spouting an opinion.

I don't necessarily know.  IANAL also, but it appears that Sec 948.60  (underage possession) only applies if he was in violation of 948.28 which is a short-barrelled weapon.  Given that the weapon he is reported to have been armed with is a DPMS Oracle .223, it's legal at 16" barrel length.

"(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28."

The ss 29.304 and .593 are with regard to those under age 16 and to those seeing a hunting license.  Neither of which is applicable.

Unless there is some way to twist the law, this looks like a loophole since they don't issue license to hunt antifa scum.

The reason it only applies to the SBRs is because of the way they did hunting laws in WI.  Under 18 is viewed as underage unless it is a rifle/carbine that fits their definition of hunting weapon...which the Panther does.  Then anyone 16+ can open carry it in WI.  The guy who is his attorney now did a youtube presentation and walked through all the stuff around a year or so ago, before he was involved with the case.

Unlike vaporized bicep guy (who admitted he was concealed carrying - with an expired permit), it was pretty clear that Rittenhouse was open carrying.

Unless there are jurors with sympathies for antifa, this should be cut-and-dried, at this point.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 10, 2021, 12:25:41 PM
From the prosecutor’s current questioning of Rittenhouse it almost sounds like they’re trying to convict him for being an idiot. That’s not against the law. Maybe it should be in an ideal world, but that opens a can of worms as to who decides who are the idiots.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 10, 2021, 12:28:03 PM
I think many in the Woke media are anticipating an acquittal on most charges. I haven’t been able to find any recent articles on the trial at Salon, Huffpost, Mother Jones or Slate. Is MSNBC the only Woke media covering the trial in any kind of detail? My reading of the other media entities lack of interest is that they want to minimize the exposure of the Rittenhouse trial since they’re expecting disappointment. Or perhaps their journalists just “can’t deal” with a successful use of self-defense.

Well, their "journalists" can't deal with reality in general... The problem with leftists is that want to force others to see the world that they want, rather than the world as it actually is.

*None* of their fucked-up opinions and wishes is anything that any sane person would want, but if they keep publishing it, they push it to become "truth." Most everyone else is, unfortunately, not paying attention when this happens to give them a back-handed bitch slap.  Those in positions of authority who should are typically corrupted to the point that they can't or won't respond in a manner that would show the ridiculousness of the left for every to see, point at and laugh.
So it was the left that pushed the big lie that Trump won the 2020 election? I mean, the actions taken fit everything you laid out, but I'm pretty sure it was the other team following that shitty playbook.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 10, 2021, 12:31:52 PM
Is it possible that the prosecution is doing such a bad job today that they’re deliberately attempting to get a mistrial declared so that they can have another bite at the apple? It almost sounds like they realize they’re losing, but are trying to force a mistrial so that they can try again. Judge is yelling at prosecution now.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 10, 2021, 01:23:23 PM
Is it possible that the prosecution is doing such a bad job today that they’re deliberately attempting to get a mistrial declared so that they can have another bite at the apple? It almost sounds like they realize they’re losing, but are trying to force a mistrial so that they can try again. Judge is yelling at prosecution now.
The defense has accused them of such.

I honestly think that may be the plan.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 01:34:14 PM
Is it possible that the prosecution is doing such a bad job today that they’re deliberately attempting to get a mistrial declared so that they can have another bite at the apple? It almost sounds like they realize they’re losing, but are trying to force a mistrial so that they can try again. Judge is yelling at prosecution now.
The defense has accused them of such.

I honestly think that may be the plan.

I don't think this judge will let that happen.  Defense likely won't ask for it, and prosecutor already got his ass handed to him for variously trying to take away 5th and 2nd amendments.  The fact that both the judge and Rittenhouse had to ask him whether he meant explode or expand when he referred to hollow points as exploding inside the target...  He's asked a bunch of questions that went nowhere and/or that he didn't already know the answer to.

***EDIT***

I stand corrected - defense is motioning for mistrial with prejudice...

***END EDIT***

The prosecution is realizing that they actually have to follow the rules of evidence.  Twitter is alight with the little hamster wheel-powered brains of morons who think the judge is biased defending the Constitution...

This is just a local Kenosha ADA who is a leftist who has gotten away with bad behavior before and finally got called on it.  Guaranteed he's prosecuted people he knew were innocent in the past.  All of his cases should be reviewed.  Now - imagine the level of evil that the feds will employ for the 1/6 cases, given they have leftist activist judges supporting them.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 10, 2021, 10:23:16 PM
Kyle Rittenhouse is a very useful weathervane.

If you're not willing to acknowledge Kyle is a hero, then you're useless and not worth listening to. Notice the deafening silence from politicians on this very easy to adjudicate issue. They know what the right call is, they're just cowards or evil.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 10, 2021, 10:40:35 PM
They know what the right call is, they're just cowards or evil.

Those axes are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Tait Ransom on November 11, 2021, 12:00:58 AM
That prosecutor was on the receiving end of a benchslap.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 11, 2021, 01:49:06 AM
Greetings!

Damn right, Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero, and is an outstanding young man that was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights and defending himself against fucking scum criminals.

The politicians against him should fucking be crushed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 11, 2021, 07:59:42 AM
"Joseph Rosenbaum died as he had lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor." --Tucker Carlson

I almost spit out my drink when I heard that one. LOL.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 08:31:38 AM
From a European perspective it's such a bizarre case - A kid running around with military grade weaponry.

Thing is, if I have it right. He really shouldn't have been there (after curfew) in the first place and armed with an illegal firearm.

That said... it somewhat transcends into self-defense after that. Rosenbaum was clearly 'unhinged' and although while technically unarmed his intent was to harm Ritterhouse. Did Ritterhouse issue a warning? Did he go beyond a 'level of threat'.

Beyond that, Ritterhouse acted in self-defense (technically). Hit in the head with a skateboard and someone drew a gun at him.

However, it brings me back to the original point. Why was he there in the first place, under age and armed illegally?

Now, if he was defending his home against intruders, then that would be a whole different story.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 11, 2021, 09:05:04 AM
From a European perspective it's such a bizarre case - A kid running around with military grade weaponry.

Thing is, if I have it right. He really shouldn't have been there (after curfew) in the first place and armed with an illegal firearm.

That said... it somewhat transcends into self-defense after that. Rosenbaum was clearly 'unhinged' and although while technically unarmed his intent was to harm Ritterhouse. Did Ritterhouse issue a warning? Did he go beyond a 'level of threat'.

Beyond that, Ritterhouse acted in self-defense (technically). Hit in the head with a skateboard and someone drew a gun at him.

However, it brings me back to the original point. Why was he there in the first place, under age and armed illegally?

Now, if he was defending his home against intruders, then that would be a whole different story.
First off, an AR-15 is not a 'military grade' weapon. It is chambered in a common rifle caliber, but lacks select-fire options. The platform is ridiculously common, too.

Two: there are questions about how 'illegal' his possession was. The statute in question seems to waive any restriction on long guns, and there have been issues raised about the statute's constitutionality (because of how vague and weird it is).

Three: As I've stated earlier in the thread, I do fault Rittenhouse for being foolish. Don't go to stupid places. But, by his own testimony (and others), he had spent a great deal of time in Kenosha. He was known there. He didn't want it to be burned down by the possibly state-supported rioters*. The media (which you should not trust, and if you do just fucking kill yourself now, you artichoke) has tried to play this as 'he drove across the state to kill people!' -- except he lived just across the state line. And unlike European subjects, the U.S. does not nominally have internal controls on travel.

* There are a couple things that jump out at me from the trial. One was how the DA's office kiboshed a search warrant on Grosskreutz's phone. Another was ADA Binger's strange comments about how people were being told to stay off the streets and in their homes. By who? Were the rioters making these demands? By what authority?

I cannot help but wonder if Grosskreutz's phone had texts and calls to someone in the Kenosha or even Wisconsin state government. Wouldn't THAT have been a hell of a can of worms?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 11, 2021, 11:31:30 AM
Greetings!

Excellent, Ghostmaker!

Yeah, AR-15 Rifles are not "Military Grade" weapons, and they are certainly very legal to own.

Maybe there's a clause for under 18 year olds, but that would seem strange and foreign to me as well. People--including adolescents--have been hunting and shooting forever. I would think even if some cock-sucking Liberal politician got something like that passed in Wisconsin, it will be shoved aside and ignored.

It is so stupid. Everyone here in my state is armed to the teeth. Wisconsin needs to get their shit together on the 2nd Amendment. In my state, it is a prominent part of the STATE CONSTITUTION that everyone can be armed, with almost whatever they want. Furthermore, any citizen here can open carry, or concealed carry, and there's no BS you have to deal with, either.

All them rioting fuckers would have been wasted here in a blink, by a whole bunch of people.

BLM and ANTIFA *Thought* about trying their rioting BS up in Couer de Lane, and well, over 700 citizens showed up, along with the sheriffs at their sides, locked and loaded, on every street corner in the city. BLM and ANTIFA cried and went back across the border to Spokane. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Snowman0147 on November 11, 2021, 12:02:48 PM
Kyle Rittenhouse is a very useful weathervane.

If you're not willing to acknowledge Kyle is a hero, then you're useless and not worth listening to. Notice the deafening silence from politicians on this very easy to adjudicate issue. They know what the right call is, they're just cowards or evil.

That boy is not only a hero, but he is also INNOCENT.  Fuck just give him medals already.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 12:08:40 PM
From a European perspective it's such a bizarre case - A kid running around with military grade weaponry.

Thing is, if I have it right. He really shouldn't have been there (after curfew) in the first place and armed with an illegal firearm.

That said... it somewhat transcends into self-defense after that. Rosenbaum was clearly 'unhinged' and although while technically unarmed his intent was to harm Ritterhouse. Did Ritterhouse issue a warning? Did he go beyond a 'level of threat'.

Beyond that, Ritterhouse acted in self-defense (technically). Hit in the head with a skateboard and someone drew a gun at him.

However, it brings me back to the original point. Why was he there in the first place, under age and armed illegally?

Now, if he was defending his home against intruders, then that would be a whole different story.

Your assumptions are not correct at all.

As others have pointed out, a semiauto AR-15 is a standard rifle - it's not the M16/M4 used by the military. 

He was in possession of it legally.  At 17 years old, a long rifle is legal for him to be in possession of. 

If he shouldn't have been there, then it goes double for all of the rioters who were there. Rosenbaum (one of the turds that was shot after attacking Rittenhouse) was a 5x convicted child molester who anally raped young boys. He was released from a mental hospital and went immediately went to that area of Kenosha to engage in rioting.  *All* of the people who attacked Rittenhouse that he defended himself against were convicted felons - multiple convictions for each. These were not innocent protestors.  Rittenhouse's initial reaction to all three was to retreat and all three of them chased him and attacked him with deadly weapons. That's *all* you need for self-defense and the use of deadly force to be legal.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 12:11:41 PM
Kyle Rittenhouse is a very useful weathervane.

If you're not willing to acknowledge Kyle is a hero, then you're useless and not worth listening to. Notice the deafening silence from politicians on this very easy to adjudicate issue. They know what the right call is, they're just cowards or evil.

That boy is not only a hero, but he is also INNOCENT.  Fuck just give him medals already.

Let's not forget - he exhibited excellent trigger discipline and outstanding grouping.

Shooting on the run and in awkward positions, he hit all three of them and every shot was a hit.  He did not hit unarmed people nearby who were not a threat.  I daresay many cops could take a lesson from him in tactical shooting.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Snowman0147 on November 11, 2021, 12:12:40 PM
From a European perspective it's such a bizarre case - A kid running around with military grade weaponry.

Thing is, if I have it right. He really shouldn't have been there (after curfew) in the first place and armed with an illegal firearm.

That said... it somewhat transcends into self-defense after that. Rosenbaum was clearly 'unhinged' and although while technically unarmed his intent was to harm Ritterhouse. Did Ritterhouse issue a warning? Did he go beyond a 'level of threat'.

Beyond that, Ritterhouse acted in self-defense (technically). Hit in the head with a skateboard and someone drew a gun at him.

However, it brings me back to the original point. Why was he there in the first place, under age and armed illegally?

Now, if he was defending his home against intruders, then that would be a whole different story.

Your assumptions are not correct at all.

As others have pointed out, a semiauto AR-15 is a standard rifle - it's not the M16/M4 used by the military. 

He was in possession of it legally.  At 17 years old, a long rifle is legal for him to be in possession of. 

If he shouldn't have been there, then it goes double for all of the rioters who were there. Rosenbaum (one of the turds that was shot after attacking Rittenhouse) was a 5x convicted child molester who anally raped young boys. He was released from a mental hospital and went immediately went to that area of Kenosha to engage in rioting.  *All* of the people who attacked Rittenhouse that he defended himself against were convicted felons - multiple convictions for each. These were not innocent protestors.  Rittenhouse's initial reaction to all three was to retreat and all three of them chased him and attacked him with deadly weapons. That's *all* you need for self-defense and the use of deadly force to be legal.

Not only that, but Kyle ran to the police after his first shooting.  He clearly didn't want to shoot anyone.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 12:15:00 PM
From a European perspective it's such a bizarre case - A kid running around with military grade weaponry.

Thing is, if I have it right. He really shouldn't have been there (after curfew) in the first place and armed with an illegal firearm.

That said... it somewhat transcends into self-defense after that. Rosenbaum was clearly 'unhinged' and although while technically unarmed his intent was to harm Ritterhouse. Did Ritterhouse issue a warning? Did he go beyond a 'level of threat'.

Beyond that, Ritterhouse acted in self-defense (technically). Hit in the head with a skateboard and someone drew a gun at him.

However, it brings me back to the original point. Why was he there in the first place, under age and armed illegally?

Now, if he was defending his home against intruders, then that would be a whole different story.
First off, an AR-15 is not a 'military grade' weapon. It is chambered in a common rifle caliber, but lacks select-fire options. The platform is ridiculously common, too.

Two: there are questions about how 'illegal' his possession was. The statute in question seems to waive any restriction on long guns, and there have been issues raised about the statute's constitutionality (because of how vague and weird it is).

Three: As I've stated earlier in the thread, I do fault Rittenhouse for being foolish. Don't go to stupid places. But, by his own testimony (and others), he had spent a great deal of time in Kenosha. He was known there. He didn't want it to be burned down by the possibly state-supported rioters*. The media (which you should not trust, and if you do just fucking kill yourself now, you artichoke) has tried to play this as 'he drove across the state to kill people!' -- except he lived just across the state line. And unlike European subjects, the U.S. does not nominally have internal controls on travel.

* There are a couple things that jump out at me from the trial. One was how the DA's office kiboshed a search warrant on Grosskreutz's phone. Another was ADA Binger's strange comments about how people were being told to stay off the streets and in their homes. By who? Were the rioters making these demands? By what authority?

I cannot help but wonder if Grosskreutz's phone had texts and calls to someone in the Kenosha or even Wisconsin state government. Wouldn't THAT have been a hell of a can of worms?

I certainly don't believe he (or the other militia) were there just to kill people. The media are just looking to sensationalize the whole thing.

As for him being armed with 'military grade' weaponry. I'm really talking about it from an Irish perspective. But technically, you could be correct. I know very little about guns to be honest.

But you made the critical point here. 'Don't go to stupid places'. This is personal self-defense 101!
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 11, 2021, 12:40:05 PM
From a European perspective it's such a bizarre case - A kid running around with military grade weaponry.

Thing is, if I have it right. He really shouldn't have been there (after curfew) in the first place and armed with an illegal firearm.

That said... it somewhat transcends into self-defense after that. Rosenbaum was clearly 'unhinged' and although while technically unarmed his intent was to harm Ritterhouse. Did Ritterhouse issue a warning? Did he go beyond a 'level of threat'.

Beyond that, Ritterhouse acted in self-defense (technically). Hit in the head with a skateboard and someone drew a gun at him.

However, it brings me back to the original point. Why was he there in the first place, under age and armed illegally?

Now, if he was defending his home against intruders, then that would be a whole different story.
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: tenbones on November 11, 2021, 12:41:28 PM
Foolish being there? Sure.

But when the authorities are nowhere to be found, I take exception to the idea that *we* the citizens have no responsibility to protect our own neighborhoods. That's what he was doing with his friends.

It was a riot, and yes being there was foolish, from the perspective of those of us that sit comfortably in our own homes hundreds of miles away. I worked as an EMT during the LA Riots, I can tell you right now, it takes some sand to be out there in that kind of environment. I can guarantee you he had *no idea* what he was getting himself into - that's the foolish part - but he has impulse to help. We need more people like that. That's how you maintain order when shit goes down.

And on that night - the shit was going down.

It's unfortunate this situation happened, but it's pretty clear that... the detective on the case is pretty cute.



Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 11, 2021, 12:50:42 PM
From a European perspective it's such a bizarre case - A kid running around with military grade weaponry.

Thing is, if I have it right. He really shouldn't have been there (after curfew) in the first place and armed with an illegal firearm.

That said... it somewhat transcends into self-defense after that. Rosenbaum was clearly 'unhinged' and although while technically unarmed his intent was to harm Ritterhouse. Did Ritterhouse issue a warning? Did he go beyond a 'level of threat'.

Beyond that, Ritterhouse acted in self-defense (technically). Hit in the head with a skateboard and someone drew a gun at him.

However, it brings me back to the original point. Why was he there in the first place, under age and armed illegally?

Now, if he was defending his home against intruders, then that would be a whole different story.
First off, an AR-15 is not a 'military grade' weapon. It is chambered in a common rifle caliber, but lacks select-fire options. The platform is ridiculously common, too.

Two: there are questions about how 'illegal' his possession was. The statute in question seems to waive any restriction on long guns, and there have been issues raised about the statute's constitutionality (because of how vague and weird it is).

Three: As I've stated earlier in the thread, I do fault Rittenhouse for being foolish. Don't go to stupid places. But, by his own testimony (and others), he had spent a great deal of time in Kenosha. He was known there. He didn't want it to be burned down by the possibly state-supported rioters*. The media (which you should not trust, and if you do just fucking kill yourself now, you artichoke) has tried to play this as 'he drove across the state to kill people!' -- except he lived just across the state line. And unlike European subjects, the U.S. does not nominally have internal controls on travel.

* There are a couple things that jump out at me from the trial. One was how the DA's office kiboshed a search warrant on Grosskreutz's phone. Another was ADA Binger's strange comments about how people were being told to stay off the streets and in their homes. By who? Were the rioters making these demands? By what authority?

I cannot help but wonder if Grosskreutz's phone had texts and calls to someone in the Kenosha or even Wisconsin state government. Wouldn't THAT have been a hell of a can of worms?

I certainly don't believe he (or the other militia) were there just to kill people. The media are just looking to sensationalize the whole thing.

As for him being armed with 'military grade' weaponry. I'm really talking about it from an Irish perspective. But technically, you could be correct. I know very little about guns to be honest.

But you made the critical point here. 'Don't go to stupid places'. This is personal self-defense 101!
Yes. But 'don't go to stupid places' is not a legal or judicial argument. It does not negate self-defense.

Trying to use it as such is a small step from 'you shouldn't have worn that short skirt if you didn't want to get dragged into the alley and raped up against the wall'.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 01:19:44 PM
Trying to use it as such is a small step from 'you shouldn't have worn that short skirt if you didn't want to get dragged into the alley and raped up against the wall'.

Bit of a leap that...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 01:21:36 PM
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 11, 2021, 01:21:59 PM
Trying to use it as such is a small step from 'you shouldn't have worn that short skirt if you didn't want to get dragged into the alley and raped up against the wall'.

Bit of a leap that...
Welcome to the U.S. judicial and legal system. Lawyers pull retarded shit out of their asses on a regular basis.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 01:25:10 PM
Welcome to the U.S. judicial and legal system. Lawyers pull retarded shit out of their asses on a regular basis.

They do that shit here too. Bunch of wankers.

But that factor has nothing to do with my statement (as the way I see things).

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 01:26:06 PM
Foolish being there? Sure.

But when the authorities are nowhere to be found, I take exception to the idea that *we* the citizens have no responsibility to protect our own neighborhoods. That's what he was doing with his friends.

It was a riot, and yes being there was foolish, from the perspective of those of us that sit comfortably in our own homes hundreds of miles away. I worked as an EMT during the LA Riots, I can tell you right now, it takes some sand to be out there in that kind of environment. I can guarantee you he had *no idea* what he was getting himself into - that's the foolish part - but he has impulse to help. We need more people like that. That's how you maintain order when shit goes down.

And on that night - the shit was going down.

It's unfortunate this situation happened, but it's pretty clear that... the detective on the case is pretty cute.

Yep. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 11, 2021, 01:28:35 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, I have to disagree with the idea that Kyle was being "Foolish" for being there, for entering the riot zone. He wasn't being foolish. He was being courageous, inspiring, caring, generous, and patriotic. If anyone of YOU lived in an area owned a business that was being attacked, burned, and raped by swarms of fucking mutant thugs--would you consider some of your neighbors riding in, and blazing on them, defending you and your property, as being foolish?

Or would you consider it to be courageous, generous, and patriotic? The ide that someone else says, yeah, I care. I'm with you, brother, and as long as I breathe, the insanity is going to fucking stop. Safety and peace will be restored, and I am armed and ready to ensure it does.

That's as fucking AMERICAN as it gets. Regardless of whether or not the fucking sheriffs are around or not. Regardless if some politician clown give you fucking permission or not.

AMERICAN FREEDOM AND SECURITY BEGINS WITH YOU.

YOU, and your family, and your neighbors. Your church. All you giving a fuck about the folks down the street, or a few blocks away, and saying, yeah, if these people aren't worthy to fight for and defend, then who the fuck is? WHAT is? If you don't do it for them, why should anyone do it for you, when your hour comes?

All of America would be far safer, far more secure, and far more peaceful if MORE people thought like Kyle, and believed just as he does.

Personally, I entirely agree with Kyle Rittenhouse and his actions. I have on several occasions been in some fairly similar situations where dangerous and violent situations developed, and I intervened, to protect other people, that were innocent, against being preyed upon by criminals. In such situations, I could very well have been outmatched and killed for intervening. A supervising Sheriff at the time arriving on scene afterwards told me "Good Job, Marine!". My wife asked me why I was so willing to put my life on the line, for strangers. I can say now, just as I told her then, when someone cries for help, that makes it MY BUSINESS. When someone, a fellow citizen, is in need from being preyed upon by the monsters, I shall answer the call. Criminals and monsters should be AFRAID of us, of me, of the righteous citizen. We should live in fear of noone. We are AMERICANS. It was the way I was raised by my parents, taught by my neighbors and church, and trained in the Marine Corps. Like my father told me--he too was a veteran of World War II--he said if you aren't willing to stand up and answer the call, then who will? I have answered the call, both in uniform and as a civilian. I think every American citizen should believe the same way. At one time, in the past, probably most Americans believed similar. That's at the heart of how we became a prosperous land, ruled by Law. A land where we don't live in fear of any man.

That's where our freedom and security really lives and dies, my friends.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 11, 2021, 02:12:10 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, I have to disagree with the idea that Kyle was being "Foolish" for being there, for entering the riot zone. He wasn't being foolish. He was being courageous, inspiring, caring, generous, and patriotic. If anyone of YOU lived in an area owned a business that was being attacked, burned, and raped by swarms of fucking mutant thugs--would you consider some of your neighbors riding in, and blazing on them, defending you and your property, as being foolish?

Or would you consider it to be courageous, generous, and patriotic? The ide that someone else says, yeah, I care. I'm with you, brother, and as long as I breathe, the insanity is going to fucking stop. Safety and peace will be restored, and I am armed and ready to ensure it does.

That's as fucking AMERICAN as it gets. Regardless of whether or not the fucking sheriffs are around or not. Regardless if some politician clown give you fucking permission or not.

AMERICAN FREEDOM AND SECURITY BEGINS WITH YOU.

YOU, and your family, and your neighbors. Your church. All you giving a fuck about the folks down the street, or a few blocks away, and saying, yeah, if these people aren't worthy to fight for and defend, then who the fuck is? WHAT is? If you don't do it for them, why should anyone do it for you, when your hour comes?

All of America would be far safer, far more secure, and far more peaceful if MORE people thought like Kyle, and believed just as he does.

Personally, I entirely agree with Kyle Rittenhouse and his actions. I have on several occasions been in some fairly similar situations where dangerous and violent situations developed, and I intervened, to protect other people, that were innocent, against being preyed upon by criminals. In such situations, I could very well have been outmatched and killed for intervening. A supervising Sheriff at the time arriving on scene afterwards told me "Good Job, Marine!". My wife asked me why I was so willing to put my life on the line, for strangers. I can say now, just as I told her then, when someone cries for help, that makes it MY BUSINESS. When someone, a fellow citizen, is in need from being preyed upon by the monsters, I shall answer the call. Criminals and monsters should be AFRAID of us, of me, of the righteous citizen. We should live in fear of noone. We are AMERICANS. It was the way I was raised by my parents, taught by my neighbors and church, and trained in the Marine Corps. Like my father told me--he too was a veteran of World War II--he said if you aren't willing to stand up and answer the call, then who will? I have answered the call, both in uniform and as a civilian. I think every American citizen should believe the same way. At one time, in the past, probably most Americans believed similar. That's at the heart of how we became a prosperous land, ruled by Law. A land where we don't live in fear of any man.

That's where our freedom and security really lives and dies, my friends.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Eh, I stand by the time honored truism: don't go to stupid places.

But as I also said, it's irrelevant. I may think he was foolish. I also think if you have some sawed-off mental patient screaming 'SHOOT ME N-BOMB!', threatening to 'kill you if I catch you', and then charging you to try and take your weapon away from you... yeah, it's self-defense. The end. And if Pedo-Manlet Rosenbaum's shooting is self-defense, then so is everything after; firing at Jump Kick Man, killing Domestic Abuser Huber stone dead, and vaporizing Grotesque Grosskreutz's arm... it's all as legal as church on Sunday.

Rittenhouse is clearly affected by this ordeal and the aftermath. I hope he manages to move past it and live a long life, free to marry, work, and grill.

And here's something to consider that the retard brigade is NOT thinking through. Remember that recent incident where a woman was raped on a subway and nobody stopped it? And everyone hemmed and hawed over how sad it was that no one tried to interfere?

I fucking wonder why.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 11, 2021, 02:27:33 PM
Trying to use it as such is a small step from 'you shouldn't have worn that short skirt if you didn't want to get dragged into the alley and raped up against the wall'.

Bit of a leap that...

I agree. To be comparable to the widespread riots, it would be closer to say that you'd be raped in the middle of the street.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 02:52:29 PM
One thing about this whole shit show that annoys me is that why Rausembaum's actions are not getting a large portion of the blame?

Here we have an aggressive fool who was already out provoking armed militia earlier (apparently he was a bit mental or some shit). Then, he chased and ran at Ritterhouse. Was Ritterhouse a threat at the time? Nope... Rausembaum turned him into one.

While we have established that Ritter should not have been there, legally, fair enough. But had Rosembaum not acted so stupidly the whole thing incident would not have happened.

Second rule of self-defense... Never approach or antagonize an armed target.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 02:58:13 PM
Trying to use it as such is a small step from 'you shouldn't have worn that short skirt if you didn't want to get dragged into the alley and raped up against the wall'.

Bit of a leap that...

I agree. To be comparable to the widespread riots, it would be closer to say that you'd be raped in the middle of the street.

I find it especially disgusting that Binger tried to imply that Rittenhouse should have obeyed the mob of rioters - as if they had any authority whatsoever.  He's trying to lay claim to the idea that rioters are an extension of the state.  What. The. Actual. Fuck.

Binger needs to be disbarred before he gets elected to public office. Make no mistake - he *is* the type of scum who becomes entrenched political filth.  I'm willing to bet he'd fit right in in the UK where they love to prosecute the victims for fighting back.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 03:00:11 PM
One thing about this whole shit show that annoys me is that why Rausembaum's actions are not getting a large portion of the blame?

Here we have an aggressive fool who was already out provoking armed militia earlier (apparently he was a bit mental or some shit). Then, he chased and ran at Ritterhouse. Was Ritterhouse a threat at the time? Nope... Rausembaum turned him into one.

While we have established that Ritter should not have been there, legally, fair enough. But had Rosembaum not acted so stupidly the whole thing incident would not have happened.

Second rule of self-defense... Never approach or antagonize an armed target.

Nonoseebutbutsee - that doesn't fit the narrative that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist who shot in cold blood three innocent people of color protesting.  Yes - there are people who still think that.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 11, 2021, 03:22:37 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, I have to disagree with the idea that Kyle was being "Foolish" for being there, for entering the riot zone. He wasn't being foolish. He was being courageous, inspiring, caring, generous, and patriotic. If anyone of YOU lived in an area owned a business that was being attacked, burned, and raped by swarms of fucking mutant thugs--would you consider some of your neighbors riding in, and blazing on them, defending you and your property, as being foolish?

Or would you consider it to be courageous, generous, and patriotic? The ide that someone else says, yeah, I care. I'm with you, brother, and as long as I breathe, the insanity is going to fucking stop. Safety and peace will be restored, and I am armed and ready to ensure it does.

That's as fucking AMERICAN as it gets. Regardless of whether or not the fucking sheriffs are around or not. Regardless if some politician clown give you fucking permission or not.

AMERICAN FREEDOM AND SECURITY BEGINS WITH YOU.

YOU, and your family, and your neighbors. Your church. All you giving a fuck about the folks down the street, or a few blocks away, and saying, yeah, if these people aren't worthy to fight for and defend, then who the fuck is? WHAT is? If you don't do it for them, why should anyone do it for you, when your hour comes?

All of America would be far safer, far more secure, and far more peaceful if MORE people thought like Kyle, and believed just as he does.

Personally, I entirely agree with Kyle Rittenhouse and his actions. I have on several occasions been in some fairly similar situations where dangerous and violent situations developed, and I intervened, to protect other people, that were innocent, against being preyed upon by criminals. In such situations, I could very well have been outmatched and killed for intervening. A supervising Sheriff at the time arriving on scene afterwards told me "Good Job, Marine!". My wife asked me why I was so willing to put my life on the line, for strangers. I can say now, just as I told her then, when someone cries for help, that makes it MY BUSINESS. When someone, a fellow citizen, is in need from being preyed upon by the monsters, I shall answer the call. Criminals and monsters should be AFRAID of us, of me, of the righteous citizen. We should live in fear of noone. We are AMERICANS. It was the way I was raised by my parents, taught by my neighbors and church, and trained in the Marine Corps. Like my father told me--he too was a veteran of World War II--he said if you aren't willing to stand up and answer the call, then who will? I have answered the call, both in uniform and as a civilian. I think every American citizen should believe the same way. At one time, in the past, probably most Americans believed similar. That's at the heart of how we became a prosperous land, ruled by Law. A land where we don't live in fear of any man.

That's where our freedom and security really lives and dies, my friends.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Eh, I stand by the time honored truism: don't go to stupid places.

But as I also said, it's irrelevant. I may think he was foolish. I also think if you have some sawed-off mental patient screaming 'SHOOT ME N-BOMB!', threatening to 'kill you if I catch you', and then charging you to try and take your weapon away from you... yeah, it's self-defense. The end. And if Pedo-Manlet Rosenbaum's shooting is self-defense, then so is everything after; firing at Jump Kick Man, killing Domestic Abuser Huber stone dead, and vaporizing Grotesque Grosskreutz's arm... it's all as legal as church on Sunday.

Rittenhouse is clearly affected by this ordeal and the aftermath. I hope he manages to move past it and live a long life, free to marry, work, and grill.

And here's something to consider that the retard brigade is NOT thinking through. Remember that recent incident where a woman was raped on a subway and nobody stopped it? And everyone hemmed and hawed over how sad it was that no one tried to interfere?

I fucking wonder why.

Greetings!

Yeah, that's right my friend. I also understand that some people--many people--aren't as brave or stupid as I am, depending on how you want to look at it. ;D I do sympathize with the idea of carefully avoiding dangerous locations and situations--foolish environments--and saying, fuck it. Hold up in my fortress, mind my own business, and everyone else can go get fucked! That kind of self-preservationist attitude is natural to an extent--but also deeply encouraged and supported by our own corrupt, litigious, ass-fucking backwards justice system. "No Good deed goes unpunished" and all that. Fucking criminals have rights like the day is long, but throw the book at normal citizens. Bring the hammer down on them! You know? Geesus. Yeah, fuck 'em all. Someone getting raped in the subway? Too fucking bad. Monsters raping and slaughtering some girl behind the grocery store? Oh well! A group of young thugs robbing an older gentleman in the parking lot? That all is none of my business. Go on, let's get moving, and get out of here. The police will handle it.

I mean, fuck, our fucking system and the scum-fucking lawyers and judges PUNISH people for doing good, for defending themselves and their neighbors. So, yeah. Part of me feels the same way much of the time.

I wonder why? Indeed, man. It's because we as a society haven't jackhammered these fucking corrupt lawyers and judges. Put them in jail, fire them, break them, ruin their careers and lives for championing scum criminals and thugs--and actually neglecting and trampling down the righteous. I can see why lots of people say fuck it and don't want to get involved.

Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle. A friend of mine said Liberals attitudes and approaches to society reminds him of the movie Omega Man or some older dystopian move where the rich elites lived in super high-tech towers, guarded by walls, security, and gadgets, living a life of pleasure, while everyone else lived in the urban, blasted wasteland with hordes of mutants.

That's where our society is headed towards! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Manic Modron on November 11, 2021, 04:59:48 PM
Omega Man or some older dystopian move where the rich elites lived in super high-tech towers, guarded by walls, security, and gadgets, living a life of pleasure, while everyone else lived in the urban, blasted wasteland with hordes of mutants.
Just to stave off the inevitable, Omega Man is an adaptation of I Am Legend.  Everybody is a mutant except for Charlton Heston and MAYBE a handful of survivors, no sci-fi ivory towers to be found.

Because clearly, THAT is the important part of this thread, clearing up mixed metaphors and analogies.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 11, 2021, 05:13:35 PM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.

I would strongly NOT suggest you watch the livestreams with Rekieta Law doing the commentary. For fuck's sake, they keep talking over the actual footage and you miss everything. And yet they're being praised all over right-wing twitter. Am I the only guy who can't stand how they're doing it??
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 11, 2021, 05:28:39 PM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.

Here's the rate of violent crime per from from 1985 to 2020.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/violent-crime-trend.png)

Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

That fails to support your picture that our society is steadily growing more violent and lawless. While there has been a slight increase since the low in 2014, we are still well below the high that we hit at the end of the Reagan/Bush era in 1992. (Note that the graph is not zero at the bottom, which annoys me - but it's the most up-to-date primary source.)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 11, 2021, 06:18:16 PM
50% of that graph is Chicago.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 11, 2021, 06:47:51 PM
I find it especially disgusting that Binger tried to imply that Rittenhouse should have obeyed the mob of rioters - as if they had any authority whatsoever.  He's trying to lay claim to the idea that rioters are an extension of the state.  What. The. Actual. Fuck.

That's because Antifa & BLM are an extension of the state. It's obvious. Parents who oppose what the state is teaching their children are terrorists and the FBI will send helicopters and agents to the PTA meeting.

But the regime won't intervene to stop rioting, looting, arson, and murder when it's by the regime-approved gangs.
The only reason there's a prosecution is because regime-approved gangsters were stopped by a heroic American citizen who put himself in harm's way to try to protect & help innocent people.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 11, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.

I would strongly NOT suggest you watch the livestreams with Rekieta Law doing the commentary. For fuck's sake, they keep talking over the actual footage and you miss everything. And yet they're being praised all over right-wing twitter. Am I the only guy who can't stand how they're doing it??
Yeah, I'm seconding that.

I don't hate Rekieta, but his goddamn panel of experts cannot shut the fuck up for five minutes.

Like I said. Follow Branca.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 11, 2021, 08:03:50 PM
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 08:09:44 PM
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.

Bollox...

I stand exactly by what I said. Ritter should not have been there or armed in the first place (according to your own US laws).  THEN, it went into a self-defense situation with Rosembaum's illogical actions by attacking and chasing an armed man.

You can set up that whole false dichotomy all you want. And you can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read. LOL





 
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 08:15:56 PM
I find it especially disgusting that Binger tried to imply that Rittenhouse should have obeyed the mob of rioters - as if they had any authority whatsoever.  He's trying to lay claim to the idea that rioters are an extension of the state.  What. The. Actual. Fuck.

That's because Antifa & BLM are an extension of the state. It's obvious. Parents who oppose what the state is teaching their children are terrorists and the FBI will send helicopters and agents to the PTA meeting.

But the regime won't intervene to stop rioting, looting, arson, and murder when it's by the regime-approved gangs.
The only reason there's a prosecution is because regime-approved gangsters were stopped by a heroic American citizen who put himself in harm's way to try to protect & help innocent people.

That's just it - antifa, burn loot murder, or any of the bajillion other rebel without a clue anarchist groups know they won't be prosecuted as a mob. 

What really really needed to happen, in lieu of actual policing, last year would have been scores of well armed business owners and local residents making the streets turn into rivers of leftist blood.   It can't be militias or proud boys doing it - it has to be average citizens on a scale that can't be ignored or twisted by the media.

Its the*only* thing these leftist turds fear.  These morons advertise their socialist riots on social media.  Infiltrate, identity where they are going to be, and then turn them into grease stains.  It needs to be a A Bronx Tale "now youse can't leave" beatings of their worthless little lives on a grand scale because these leftists are organized and they are supported by leftist city/state government.

I'd even go far as to say that the national guard would have been justified in mowing down crowds of antifa with machine guns.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 08:26:33 PM
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.

Bollox...

I stand exactly by what I said. Ritter should not have been there or armed in the first place (according to your own US laws).  THEN, it went into a self-defense situation with Rosembaum's illogical actions by attacking and chasing an armed man.

You can set up that whole false dichotomy all you want. And you can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read. LOL





 

You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to be there and be allowed to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 11, 2021, 08:28:23 PM
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.

Bollox...

I stand exactly by what I said. Ritter should not have been there or armed in the first place (according to your own US laws).  THEN, it went into a self-defense situation with Rosembaum's illogical actions by attacking and chasing an armed man.

You can set up that whole false dichotomy all you want. And you can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read. LOL
So if a 17 year old girl sneaks into a nightclub and gets raped, it's her fault because she was there illegally?

That's exactly what you've been implying. Constantly bringing up trivial offenses and the incredibly minor moral failings of a victim when purportedly discussing the severe offenses that were committed against them is an attempt to frame someone as a criminal or a person who deserves whatever happened to them, and thus make the violent, vile crimes against them seem more justified.

Yes, the words are still right there for everyone to read, however much you laugh at them.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 11, 2021, 08:33:06 PM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to be there and be allowed to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.
There are basically two ways to interpret that law about open carry by a 17 year old, either literally (in which case he's innocent) or by attempting to read some sense into a law that doesn't make any sense (in which case, you can make an argument that he's guilty). But that's really a distraction, along with the whole "he crossed states lines illegally" nonsense. There's a discussion to be had about them, but they're incredibly minor tangents. When they're brought up constantly and repeatedly when discussing the far more serious crimes committed against Rittenhouse, they're clearly an attempt to shift the blame to the victim.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 08:41:49 PM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.

Ah... So he's now allowed carry a weapon then, and now allowed be there after curfew, etc? So what's all the fuss about in the courts then?? Oh and please point out to where I said that's is 'okay' for rioters to be out and about causing havoc. I'll wait... If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

You also seem to conveniently (like Pat) forget about what I say about attributing a lot of the blame to Rasenbaum (and why it turns into a self-defense situation).

Bottom line here is you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Or like Pat, you're not taking it all in.

First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.










Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 11, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to be there and be allowed to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.
There are basically two ways to interpret that law about open carry by a 17 year old, either literally (in which case he's innocent) or by attempting to read some sense into a law that doesn't make any sense (in which case, you can make an argument that he's guilty). But that's really a distraction, along with the whole "he crossed states lines illegally" nonsense. There's a discussion to be had about them, but they're incredibly minor tangents. When they're brought up constantly and repeatedly when discussing the far more serious crimes committed against Rittenhouse, they're clearly an attempt to shift the blame to the victim.

When you are charging someone with self-defense you've got to look at every factor involved to see their 'intent'. I personally don't believe, as I've said before, incidentally, that Ritterhouse had the intention of hurting anyone. It just turned into a shit show...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 08:50:52 PM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to be there and be allowed to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.
There are basically two ways to interpret that law about open carry by a 17 year old, either literally (in which case he's innocent) or by attempting to read some sense into a law that doesn't make any sense (in which case, you can make an argument that he's guilty). But that's really a distraction, along with the whole "he crossed states lines illegally" nonsense. There's a discussion to be had about them, but they're incredibly minor tangents. When they're brought up constantly and repeatedly when discussing the far more serious crimes committed against Rittenhouse, they're clearly an attempt to shift the blame to the victim.

Oh absolutely.  It's definitely a "he deserved to have been been attacked" blaming the victim.  The problem is the argument is made by mouth-breathers who get their information from TikTok.  These professors emeritus obviously stayed at a Holiday Inn Express before giving their opinions.

I can understand the "forest for the trees" nature of the argument about the section of the law making it legal for 17 year olds to possess (but not buy) rifles and shotguns.  What is troubling is how anyone can argue that it was illegal for him to travel to Wisconsin with the rifle.  The State Attorney's office confirmed it was purchased in Wisconsin and when it did cross state lines, it was in the trunk of a car and in possession of an adult.  It's a nothing burger.  But all of these fools repeat this lie as if it were gospel without doing any basic research.

Binger has proven himself to be personally and professionally without morals or ethics - he *knows* it is cut and dried self defense.  Even if forced by his political masters to try the case, that he would attempt to claim guilt by Rittenhouse exercising his 2nd and 5th Amendment rights and his Miranda rights, the judge should have already declared a mistrial with prejudice and/or had him thrown in a cell for contempt.  I mean, this piece of shit Binger actually tried to put the Constitution itself on trial here.  He knows exactly what he is doing and tried to get away with prosecutorial misconduct throughout the entire trial.  One would hope the jurors see him for the scumbag he is.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 11, 2021, 09:02:43 PM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.

Ah... So he's now allowed carry a weapon then, and now allowed be there after curfew, etc? So what's all the fuss about in the courts then?? Oh and please point out to where I said that's is 'okay' for rioters to be out and about causing havoc. I'll wait... If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

You also seem to conveniently (like Pat) forget about what I say about attributing a lot of the blame to Rasenbaum (and why it turns into a self-defense situation).

Bottom line here is you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Or like Pat, you're not taking it all in.

First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.

Yes, actually he was allowed to carry a weapon and allowed to be there - we've already established this.

Legally, none of your argument matter as to whether he should have been there.  People in the US have the reasonable expectation of going about in public without expectation of being assaulted or killed.  In those cases where there is civil unrest, the citizenry has the right to assume to law enforcement will be deployed to restore order.  Law enforcement, in fact, did not attempt to restore order because they were understaffed - the mayor of Kenosha admitted this (and that he turned down Trump's push to send guardsmen - and it wasn't until after Rittenhouse had to defend himself that the mayor acquiesced to guardsmen coming).

As to your assertion that he was in violation of curfew, we've already established via his testimony that he did not receive any indications of there being a curfew until after he was already there - and in fact that charge was dismissed by the judge because the prosecution failed to produce any evidence of there being a lawful order for a curfew.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 11, 2021, 09:49:01 PM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.

Ah... So he's now allowed carry a weapon then, and now allowed be there after curfew, etc? So what's all the fuss about in the courts then?? Oh and please point out to where I said that's is 'okay' for rioters to be out and about causing havoc. I'll wait... If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

You also seem to conveniently (like Pat) forget about what I say about attributing a lot of the blame to Rasenbaum (and why it turns into a self-defense situation).

Bottom line here is you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Or like Pat, you're not taking it all in.

First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.
I looked at the totality of what you said and how you said, not just the few snippets you're repeating. You made a very clear and biased presentation where you were attempting to impute guilt rather than discussing any issues fairly.

For instance, another minor example: Your "first rule of self-defense" is yet another attempt to blame the victim.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 11, 2021, 10:52:39 PM
Omega Man or some older dystopian move where the rich elites lived in super high-tech towers, guarded by walls, security, and gadgets, living a life of pleasure, while everyone else lived in the urban, blasted wasteland with hordes of mutants.
Just to stave off the inevitable, Omega Man is an adaptation of I Am Legend.  Everybody is a mutant except for Charlton Heston and MAYBE a handful of survivors, no sci-fi ivory towers to be found.

Because clearly, THAT is the important part of this thread, clearing up mixed metaphors and analogies.

Greetings!

Thanks! Well, he mentioned some dystopian movie. I don't remember the name precisely.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 11, 2021, 11:06:34 PM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.

Here's the rate of violent crime per from from 1985 to 2020.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/violent-crime-trend.png)

Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

That fails to support your picture that our society is steadily growing more violent and lawless. While there has been a slight increase since the low in 2014, we are still well below the high that we hit at the end of the Reagan/Bush era in 1992. (Note that the graph is not zero at the bottom, which annoys me - but it's the most up-to-date primary source.)

Greetings!

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

There's always been crime, rape, slaughter, and mayhem in the fucking ghettos. NOW, though, the violence is spreading all over the fucking place.

If you want to console yursef with some inane graph, well, good for you. I now what I see with my own eyes, and what people in normal towns and neighborhoods are experiencing NOW--and it is nothing like 30 or 40 fucking years ago.

Oh, and yeah, Jhkim. My "Lived Experience" is superior knowledge to some delusional graph. Trusting in graphs, math, and statistics is racist, and just bowing down to WHITE SUPREMACY!

I would think by now you would have gotten the memo. Any studies, any research, if it doesn't line up with a person's ideology is automatically susect, and thrown the fuck out as being deemed worthless.

That's what good Liberals believe, so there you go.

The graph you are relying on is corrupt and unreliable.

Go back and pay attention to the last 5 years of video, news reports, inteviews, and radio programs. Hell, DOZENS of people are slaughtered in CHICAGO every weekend. Black men and women. Black babies and kids are slaughtered in cities throughout the country...and the vast majority of the cities that black people are being murdered in are run and governed by who again?

That's right. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 11, 2021, 11:27:49 PM
If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

Are you aware that the city in question was undergoing riots? That the US has had rolling riots for a couple of years now? That we're in the middle of a national discussion about abolishing the police entirely and replacing them with... whateverthe fuck these people are suggesting. And that these riots are sparked by police actions against civilians, putting their training under criticism?

We left the police as a deterrent behind a long time ago. Many would argue that the breakdown of our police system is why so many people are arming themselves. (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/14/us/us-gun-sales-record/index.html)

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 11, 2021, 11:47:29 PM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.

Here's the rate of violent crime per from from 1985 to 2020.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/violent-crime-trend.png)

Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

That fails to support your picture that our society is steadily growing more violent and lawless. While there has been a slight increase since the low in 2014, we are still well below the high that we hit at the end of the Reagan/Bush era in 1992. (Note that the graph is not zero at the bottom, which annoys me - but it's the most up-to-date primary source.)

Greetings!

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

There's always been crime, rape, slaughter, and mayhem in the fucking ghettos. NOW, though, the violence is spreading all over the fucking place.

If you want to console yursef with some inane graph, well, good for you. I now what I see with my own eyes, and what people in normal towns and neighborhoods are experiencing NOW--and it is nothing like 30 or 40 fucking years ago.

Oh, and yeah, Jhkim. My "Lived Experience" is superior knowledge to some delusional graph. Trusting in graphs, math, and statistics is racist, and just bowing down to WHITE SUPREMACY!

I would think by now you would have gotten the memo. Any studies, any research, if it doesn't line up with a person's ideology is automatically susect, and thrown the fuck out as being deemed worthless.

That's what good Liberals believe, so there you go.

The graph you are relying on is corrupt and unreliable.

Go back and pay attention to the last 5 years of video, news reports, inteviews, and radio programs. Hell, DOZENS of people are slaughtered in CHICAGO every weekend. Black men and women. Black babies and kids are slaughtered in cities throughout the country...and the vast majority of the cities that black people are being murdered in are run and governed by who again?

That's right. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Perhaps your perception (and that of my own too) is biased because of the saturation of media depicting violence? Be honest, how much more violence is shown now than in the 1990s? Also, I didn't dig into his graph, but perhaps it is showing charges or convictions based on violent crimes (both of which might be down these days for various reasons) since it might be impossible to determine how many violent acts occurred.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 11, 2021, 11:54:20 PM
First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.

First rule of self-defense: Always bring a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 to a skateboard fight.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: moonsweeper on November 12, 2021, 12:40:35 AM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.

Here's the rate of violent crime per from from 1985 to 2020.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/violent-crime-trend.png)

Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

That fails to support your picture that our society is steadily growing more violent and lawless. While there has been a slight increase since the low in 2014, we are still well below the high that we hit at the end of the Reagan/Bush era in 1992. (Note that the graph is not zero at the bottom, which annoys me - but it's the most up-to-date primary source.)

Greetings!

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

There's always been crime, rape, slaughter, and mayhem in the fucking ghettos. NOW, though, the violence is spreading all over the fucking place.

If you want to console yursef with some inane graph, well, good for you. I now what I see with my own eyes, and what people in normal towns and neighborhoods are experiencing NOW--and it is nothing like 30 or 40 fucking years ago.

Oh, and yeah, Jhkim. My "Lived Experience" is superior knowledge to some delusional graph. Trusting in graphs, math, and statistics is racist, and just bowing down to WHITE SUPREMACY!

I would think by now you would have gotten the memo. Any studies, any research, if it doesn't line up with a person's ideology is automatically susect, and thrown the fuck out as being deemed worthless.

That's what good Liberals believe, so there you go.

The graph you are relying on is corrupt and unreliable.

Go back and pay attention to the last 5 years of video, news reports, inteviews, and radio programs. Hell, DOZENS of people are slaughtered in CHICAGO every weekend. Black men and women. Black babies and kids are slaughtered in cities throughout the country...and the vast majority of the cities that black people are being murdered in are run and governed by who again?

That's right. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Perhaps your perception (and that of my own too) is biased because of the saturation of media depicting violence? Be honest, how much more violence is shown now than in the 1990s? Also, I didn't dig into his graph, but perhaps it is showing charges or convictions based on violent crimes (both of which might be down these days for various reasons) since it might be impossible to determine how many violent acts occurred.

Perhaps someone should have clicked the little methodology button below the chart on the government website...

Shark, the reason the graph is so low is because only theft, aggravated robbery, and burglary are counted as property oriented violent crimes for that chart...Arson, vandalism, and other property destruction are NOT included in the graph...also the personal crime part doesn't seem to include general rioting unless charged as aggravated assault.

I'm surprised jhkim posted something that misleading without mentioning the methodology.  I mean he's usually so careful with his sources being a scientist and all.  I just can't believe he didn't spend the 30 seconds it took to read the methodology paragraph pop-up.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 01:25:00 AM
Shark, the reason the graph is so low is because only theft, aggravated robbery, and burglary are counted as property oriented violent crimes for that chart...Arson, vandalism, and other property destruction are NOT included in the graph...also the personal crime part doesn't seem to include general rioting unless charged as aggravated assault.

moonsweeper - the arson stats are available in the same link.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/arson-trend.png)
Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Vandalism stats aren't available to isolate in that same tool, but it is classified under general property crime, and here's the overall property crime trend:

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/property-crime-trend.png)
Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Vandalism numbers are available from the UCR here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 02:39:02 AM
*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.
Go back and pay attention to the last 5 years of video, news reports, inteviews, and radio programs. Hell, DOZENS of people are slaughtered in CHICAGO every weekend.

SHARK - I'm 51. I lived in Chicago from 1987 to 1991 for undergrad (I went to U of Chicago), and again in the Chicago area from 1993 to 1998. I was mugged twice during that time, and I knew dozens of people who were the victims of crime. I don't know what your personal experience of Chicago is, but I lived through it during those peak years and it was terrible. It's still terrible now - but it was even worse back then.

In my opinion, watching the so-called "news" - especially TV news - isn't the same thing as being well-informed or personal experience. The news has always been heavily sensationalized - and even moreso with increased political polarization over the past 20 years.

The U.S. is a country of 330 million people. There have been over a million violent crimes every year for decades - thousands every day. The ones shown on the news are always just a tiny fraction of the actual crimes occurring. You can go back and look at the actual reports from the 1990s - the statistics I am showing were exactly the same.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 12, 2021, 04:22:25 AM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.

Ah... So he's now allowed carry a weapon then, and now allowed be there after curfew, etc? So what's all the fuss about in the courts then?? Oh and please point out to where I said that's is 'okay' for rioters to be out and about causing havoc. I'll wait... If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

You also seem to conveniently (like Pat) forget about what I say about attributing a lot of the blame to Rasenbaum (and why it turns into a self-defense situation).

Bottom line here is you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Or like Pat, you're not taking it all in.

First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.
I looked at the totality of what you said and how you said, not just the few snippets you're repeating. You made a very clear and biased presentation where you were attempting to impute guilt rather than discussing any issues fairly.

For instance, another minor example: Your "first rule of self-defense" is yet another attempt to blame the victim.

If you say so... LOL
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 12, 2021, 06:23:18 AM
*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.
That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data yourself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear. Cops tend to claim it's broken window policing, which is the name for a theory of law enforcement based on going after people for minor crimes, like vandalism, using the argument that small social disruptions lead to a disrespect for the law, and an increase in more serious crimes. The problem with that philosophy is it leads to a fuckload of kids with criminal records for trivial things, which makes it hard for them to get jobs or otherwise not be criminals; and has led to police militarization and huge incarceration rates. Another argument postulated by the Freakonomics guys is that it's due to abortion, because the decline corresponds strongly with the first generation of kids that grew up after Roe v. Wade. The argument here is that unwanted children lead to kids growing up to be criminals. But while there's a correspondence, that's doesn't prove causation, and the argument seems overly facile. It may also be related to better treatments for drugs. I don't know the exact reason, and I suspect it's multi-causal.

Serious violent crimes right now are disproportionately confined to major urban centers, and that was also true for the riots last year. It's worth putting them in context -- 33 people or so were killed across the country in the racist terrorist insurrection, but that's just a a blip on the annual murder rate in a single big city like Chicago, where hundreds of people are killed each year. The perception that violent crime is getting worse is a matter of focus. Remember, that news since the turn of the millennium has been chasing sensationalism, and it's gotten more and more biased and focused on outrage; and we live in an era of 24/7 news cycles instead of just getting one dose a day at 5. When you're bombarded non-stop with horrors, it leads to the impression that it's omnipresent and things have become much worse. But that's not true. It's gotten a little worse lately, but overall it's much, much safer than it was in the 90s. The is a huge country, so people still commit horrible things multiple times a day. But the number of horrible things has unequivocally gone down. We just see more because the news and social media have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on them.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 12, 2021, 07:03:46 AM
*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.
That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data on itself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear. Cops tend to claim its broken window policing, which is the name for a theory of law enforcement based on going after people for minor crimes, like vandalism, using the argument that small social disruptions lead to a disrespect for the law, and an increase in more serious crimes. The problem with that philosophy is it leads to a fuckload of kids with criminal records for trivial things, which makes it hard for them to get jobs or otherwise not be criminals; and has led to police militarization and huge incarceration rates. Another argument postulated by the Freakonomics guys is that it's due to abortion, because the decline corresponds strongly with the first generation of kids that grew up after Roe v. Wade. The argument here is that unwanted children lead to kids growing up to be criminals. But while there's a correspondence, that's doesn't prove causation, and the argument seems overly facile. It may also be related to better treatments for drugs. I don't know the exact reason, and I suspect it's multi-causal.

Serious violent crimes right now are disproportionately confined to major urban centers, and that was also true for the riots last year. It's worth putting them in context -- 33 people or so were killed across the country in the racist terrorist insurrection, but that's just a a blip on the annual murder rate in a single big city like Chicago, where hundreds of people are killed each year. The perception that violent crime is getting worse is a matter of focus. Remember, that news since the turn of the millennium has been chasing sensationalism, and it's gotten more and more biased and focused on outrage; and we live in an era of 24/7 news cycles instead of just getting one dose a day at 5. When you're bombarded non-stop with horrors, it leads to the impression that it's omnipresent and things have become much worse. But that's not true. It's gotten a little worse lately, but overall it's much, much safer than it was in the 90s. The is a huge country, so people still commit horrible things multiple times a day. But the number of horrible things has unequivocally gone down. We just see more because the news and social media have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on them.

It's actually a combination of things:

1. Broken windows policing.
2. Directing police to *not* arrest people for criminal acts to lower the stats.
3. Charging them with something other than what they actually did so they aren't counted in the stats.
4. Chicago.  Who the fuck knows what the hell their problem is that dozens will be shot on a daily basis there.  The police *know* who the problems are.  We know that the problems are a bunch of animal savages.  Microchip them upon arrest and then when they commit more violent crime, you put them down like dogs.

The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

*That's* the crux of the matter - we're too soft on known crime while being overly aggressive on those who deserve a second chance (or should have never been prosecuted to begin with).

And that is really what it comes down to - morons say that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there that night.  He wouldn't have needed to defend himself if the police (or the guardsmen that the governor refused) had just gone in there and rounded up every last rioter - whether by arresting them peacefully or by giving them doses of wooden shampoo.  I don't *care* about how it looks ,- send in dogs and firehoses if you need to.  Because that's the failing of politicians - they worry about the optics instead of worrying about protecting their citizenry.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 12, 2021, 08:09:48 AM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.

Ah... So he's now allowed carry a weapon then, and now allowed be there after curfew, etc? So what's all the fuss about in the courts then?? Oh and please point out to where I said that's is 'okay' for rioters to be out and about causing havoc. I'll wait... If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

You also seem to conveniently (like Pat) forget about what I say about attributing a lot of the blame to Rasenbaum (and why it turns into a self-defense situation).

Bottom line here is you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Or like Pat, you're not taking it all in.

First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.
WHAT curfew? You do know that charge was dropped because the state couldn't actually produce any curfew edict for that night, right?

This ties in with a comment I made: when they talk about 'violating curfew', exactly who was establishing and enforcing it? The cops -- or Antifa?

You are continually attempting to tie a question of judgement to a legal issue and you are wrong.

Now stop simping for the pedophile, the felon, and the domestic abuser. It just makes you look like a TBP mod.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 12, 2021, 08:21:53 AM
You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.

Ah... So he's now allowed carry a weapon then, and now allowed be there after curfew, etc? So what's all the fuss about in the courts then?? Oh and please point out to where I said that's is 'okay' for rioters to be out and about causing havoc. I'll wait... If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

You also seem to conveniently (like Pat) forget about what I say about attributing a lot of the blame to Rasenbaum (and why it turns into a self-defense situation).

Bottom line here is you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Or like Pat, you're not taking it all in.

First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.
WHAT curfew? You do know that charge was dropped because the state couldn't actually produce any curfew edict for that night, right?

This ties in with a comment I made: when they talk about 'violating curfew', exactly who was establishing and enforcing it? The cops -- or Antifa?

You are continually attempting to tie a question of judgement to a legal issue and you are wrong.

Now stop simping for the pedophile, the felon, and the domestic abuser. It just makes you look like a TBP mod.

Let's not forget that the pedo was convicted multiple times, as was the wife-beater...  "Model citizens."
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 12, 2021, 08:22:50 AM
Now stop simping for the pedophile, the felon, and the domestic abuser. It just makes you look like a TBP mod.

Well, I've always secretly admired TBP mods... And I just adore pedophiles and domestic abusers. So, I'm happy to simp for them.  ;D


Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 12, 2021, 09:09:46 AM
Here's the thing: H.L. Mencken once commented that if you fight for freedom, you wind up defending a lot of scoundrels, but you have to defend them too.

The prior convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are only relevant in that they demonstrate their motivations, and even then they shouldn't be an issue. Only their ACTIONS that night matter.

And that's where the narrative shits itself and falls over. All three of them attacked or tried to attack Rittenhouse, and got shot for their troubles. Actions have consequences, after all.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 12, 2021, 09:23:08 AM
Here's the thing: H.L. Mencken once commented that if you fight for freedom, you wind up defending a lot of scoundrels, but you have to defend them too.

The prior convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are only relevant in that they demonstrate their motivations, and even then they shouldn't be an issue. Only their ACTIONS that night matter.

And that's where the narrative shits itself and falls over. All three of them attacked or tried to attack Rittenhouse, and got shot for their troubles. Actions have consequences, after all.

Yep.  And all of these social media scholars can't grasp the idea that if, say, three guys who weren't criminally-minded convicted felons had interacted with Rittenhouse, he would have not shot them.  Some of them still think he was some kind of white supremacist hell-bent on killing black people.  In fact, I've seen one of two of them post sentiments that these three wastes of oxygen were killed because they acted black.  WTF?!?!  So child rape, burglary, and domestic abuse are getting a pass if black people do it? It's just part of their culture?!?!

As a rational thinker who watched the testimony, I would *expect* that he'll be found not guilty of all charges.  He might be found guilty of one of the lesser charges because of media pressure to find him guilty of something.  And that's the problem - too many retards and morons serving on juries who are either biased, too stupid to understand the information, or easily swayed.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 12, 2021, 09:45:09 AM
Here's the thing: H.L. Mencken once commented that if you fight for freedom, you wind up defending a lot of scoundrels, but you have to defend them too.

The prior convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are only relevant in that they demonstrate their motivations, and even then they shouldn't be an issue. Only their ACTIONS that night matter.

And that's where the narrative shits itself and falls over. All three of them attacked or tried to attack Rittenhouse, and got shot for their troubles. Actions have consequences, after all.

Yep.  And all of these social media scholars can't grasp the idea that if, say, three guys who weren't criminally-minded convicted felons had interacted with Rittenhouse, he would have not shot them.  Some of them still think he was some kind of white supremacist hell-bent on killing black people.  In fact, I've seen one of two of them post sentiments that these three wastes of oxygen were killed because they acted black.  WTF?!?!  So child rape, burglary, and domestic abuse are getting a pass if black people do it? It's just part of their culture?!?!

As a rational thinker who watched the testimony, I would *expect* that he'll be found not guilty of all charges.  He might be found guilty of one of the lesser charges because of media pressure to find him guilty of something.  And that's the problem - too many retards and morons serving on juries who are either biased, too stupid to understand the information, or easily swayed.
The weapons charge is a big maybe, because the relevant statute isn't written well. It seems to (at least by my reading) waive the 18+ requirement for rifles and shotguns and only requires the bearer to be 16+. That's my opinion, but hey, not a lawyer.

The rest of it? If Kyle had grabbed up a brick, caved in Rosenbaum's skull when he lunged, used it to smash in Huber's face when he tried to brain him with a skateboard, and then broken and crippled Grosskreutz's arm when he drew a gun, would we be having this discussion?

So yeah. It's political. And it's bullshit. And the prosecution should be sanctioned (they won't).
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 12, 2021, 10:28:11 AM
The weapons charge is a big maybe, because the relevant statute isn't written well. It seems to (at least by my reading) waive the 18+ requirement for rifles and shotguns and only requires the bearer to be 16+. That's my opinion, but hey, not a lawyer.

One additional wrinkle is the Wisconsin jury instructions just reference the clause that says carrying a deadly weapon when you're under 18 a misdemeanor, and not the additional clauses that carve out an exception. The judge could alter the jury instructions to correctly reflect the law, but judges tend to be very reluctant to do so because this often results in cases being overturned in appeals. While the judge has been reluctant to do so, one way to cut that Gordian knot is to just throw out the charge.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 12, 2021, 11:01:52 AM
The weapons charge is a big maybe, because the relevant statute isn't written well. It seems to (at least by my reading) waive the 18+ requirement for rifles and shotguns and only requires the bearer to be 16+. That's my opinion, but hey, not a lawyer.

One additional wrinkle is the Wisconsin jury instructions just reference the clause that says carrying a deadly weapon when you're under 18 a misdemeanor, and not the additional clauses that carve out an exception. The judge could alter the jury instructions to correctly reflect the law, but judges tend to be very reluctant to do so because this often results in cases being overturned in appeals. While the judge has been reluctant to do so, one way to cut that Gordian knot is to just throw out the charge.

I do find it troubling that prosecutors have been allowed to dictate which sections of the law they want juries to not be allowed to look at.  Bottom line - if it requires a lawyer to make some twisted logic argument, then the law needs to be written more clearly.

In this case, there is no ambiguity in the law as written.  We know what the intent may have been.  Doesn't change the fact that the law as written carves out an exception for 17 year old carrying rifles or shotguns that are long enough to prevent concealment.  And that's the thing - you have to judge the law as written.  There is always the option for jury nullification - but I've never heard of reverse nullification.

Even then, the defense more than established reasonable doubt.  The video of a kid being chased, smashed in the head with a skateboard, and having a gun pointed at his head are all provocations with use of deadly force that any reasonable person would conclude required and allowed him the need to neutralize the threat to his life.  The fact that they continued to chase him even though they knew he was armed just speaks to their own reckless behavior. The only thing missing from his testimony is a statement that by merely having his rifle, he believed it would be a deterrent - the better to have and not need rather than need and not have.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 12:20:13 PM
That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data on itself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear.

It's actually a combination of things:

1. Broken windows policing.
2. Directing police to *not* arrest people for criminal acts to lower the stats.
3. Charging them with something other than what they actually did so they aren't counted in the stats.
4. Chicago.  Who the fuck knows what the hell their problem is that dozens will be shot on a daily basis there. The police *know* who the problems are.  We know that the problems are a bunch of animal savages.

Regarding manipulation of arrest stats (your #2) -- The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) was established in 1972 during Richard Nixon's administration specifically to address local police departments manipulating statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey

It is run by the Census Bureau independently of police and serves as a cross-check on the arrest numbers collected by the FBI/DOJ. Households are directly surveyed about what crimes they have experienced, regardless of what the police have done about it. It is less exact because it is a random sampling, but it shows exactly the same general trend over the past 30 years.

Also, while Chicago has major problems, it isn't an outlier. The reason why it stands out is mainly that its population is so high. Out of the top 100 most populous cities, it is #10 in murder rate and #17 in violent crime rate. In 2019, the cities with the highest murder rate were St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, Cleveland, Memphis, and Newark. But Chicago's population is more than the top six cities combined, so its statistics stand out a lot more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 12, 2021, 12:28:04 PM
*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.
That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data yourself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear. Cops tend to claim it's broken window policing, which is the name for a theory of law enforcement based on going after people for minor crimes, like vandalism, using the argument that small social disruptions lead to a disrespect for the law, and an increase in more serious crimes. The problem with that philosophy is it leads to a fuckload of kids with criminal records for trivial things, which makes it hard for them to get jobs or otherwise not be criminals; and has led to police militarization and huge incarceration rates. Another argument postulated by the Freakonomics guys is that it's due to abortion, because the decline corresponds strongly with the first generation of kids that grew up after Roe v. Wade. The argument here is that unwanted children lead to kids growing up to be criminals. But while there's a correspondence, that's doesn't prove causation, and the argument seems overly facile. It may also be related to better treatments for drugs. I don't know the exact reason, and I suspect it's multi-causal.

Serious violent crimes right now are disproportionately confined to major urban centers, and that was also true for the riots last year. It's worth putting them in context -- 33 people or so were killed across the country in the racist terrorist insurrection, but that's just a a blip on the annual murder rate in a single big city like Chicago, where hundreds of people are killed each year. The perception that violent crime is getting worse is a matter of focus. Remember, that news since the turn of the millennium has been chasing sensationalism, and it's gotten more and more biased and focused on outrage; and we live in an era of 24/7 news cycles instead of just getting one dose a day at 5. When you're bombarded non-stop with horrors, it leads to the impression that it's omnipresent and things have become much worse. But that's not true. It's gotten a little worse lately, but overall it's much, much safer than it was in the 90s. The is a huge country, so people still commit horrible things multiple times a day. But the number of horrible things has unequivocally gone down. We just see more because the news and social media have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on them.

Greetings!

Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 01:15:20 PM
Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?

Yes, it is largely sensationalism using selective stats and language. There have *always* been hundreds of violent crimes every day in the U.S., given a population of over 300 million people. So it's always possible to fill the news 24/7 with new horrendous crimes. Given dozens of types of crimes, fifty states and hundreds of cities and different time ranges, there are many selective ways to say that things are getting worse. But that's not the bigger picture for the whole country over decades.

The stats that I have been showing are directly from the FBI. I would encourage you to try out the crime stat explorer yourself to look at trends.

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

For example, one selective stat is that there *was* a sharp increase specifically in the murder rate in 2020. Here's the graph for murder rate from 1985 to 2020.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/homicide-trend.png)

You can see a sharp uptick from 2019 to 2020. And that is a lot of murders. But it is still much lower than the peak murder rate in 1991. Also, as seen in the graphs I posted previously, other crime types don't see the same sharp uptick.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 12, 2021, 03:33:22 PM
*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.
That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data yourself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear. Cops tend to claim it's broken window policing, which is the name for a theory of law enforcement based on going after people for minor crimes, like vandalism, using the argument that small social disruptions lead to a disrespect for the law, and an increase in more serious crimes. The problem with that philosophy is it leads to a fuckload of kids with criminal records for trivial things, which makes it hard for them to get jobs or otherwise not be criminals; and has led to police militarization and huge incarceration rates. Another argument postulated by the Freakonomics guys is that it's due to abortion, because the decline corresponds strongly with the first generation of kids that grew up after Roe v. Wade. The argument here is that unwanted children lead to kids growing up to be criminals. But while there's a correspondence, that's doesn't prove causation, and the argument seems overly facile. It may also be related to better treatments for drugs. I don't know the exact reason, and I suspect it's multi-causal.

Serious violent crimes right now are disproportionately confined to major urban centers, and that was also true for the riots last year. It's worth putting them in context -- 33 people or so were killed across the country in the racist terrorist insurrection, but that's just a a blip on the annual murder rate in a single big city like Chicago, where hundreds of people are killed each year. The perception that violent crime is getting worse is a matter of focus. Remember, that news since the turn of the millennium has been chasing sensationalism, and it's gotten more and more biased and focused on outrage; and we live in an era of 24/7 news cycles instead of just getting one dose a day at 5. When you're bombarded non-stop with horrors, it leads to the impression that it's omnipresent and things have become much worse. But that's not true. It's gotten a little worse lately, but overall it's much, much safer than it was in the 90s. The is a huge country, so people still commit horrible things multiple times a day. But the number of horrible things has unequivocally gone down. We just see more because the news and social media have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on them.

Greetings!

Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
None of that conflicts with what I just said. There has been a striking rise in many types of crime in the last year. But there was an even more striking drop since the 1990s.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 12, 2021, 04:04:09 PM
The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 12, 2021, 04:28:49 PM
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.

Bollox...

I stand exactly by what I said. Ritter should not have been there or armed in the first place (according to your own US laws).  THEN, it went into a self-defense situation with Rosembaum's illogical actions by attacking and chasing an armed man.

You can set up that whole false dichotomy all you want. And you can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read. LOL





 

Don't you mean "ANTIFA should not have been there, should not have been trying burn down a city, should not have been trying to find people to assault, and the local and state police and the national guard if need be should have arrested all of them and given them lengthy prison sentences", but that did not happen, creating a lawless scenario where obviously any argument that someone 'should not be there' is disproven by the fact that the state itself through out all charges against the terrorists?

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 12, 2021, 04:34:30 PM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.

Here's the rate of violent crime per from from 1985 to 2020.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/violent-crime-trend.png)

Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

That fails to support your picture that our society is steadily growing more violent and lawless. While there has been a slight increase since the low in 2014, we are still well below the high that we hit at the end of the Reagan/Bush era in 1992. (Note that the graph is not zero at the bottom, which annoys me - but it's the most up-to-date primary source.)

Greetings!

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

There's always been crime, rape, slaughter, and mayhem in the fucking ghettos. NOW, though, the violence is spreading all over the fucking place.

If you want to console yursef with some inane graph, well, good for you. I now what I see with my own eyes, and what people in normal towns and neighborhoods are experiencing NOW--and it is nothing like 30 or 40 fucking years ago.

Oh, and yeah, Jhkim. My "Lived Experience" is superior knowledge to some delusional graph. Trusting in graphs, math, and statistics is racist, and just bowing down to WHITE SUPREMACY!

I would think by now you would have gotten the memo. Any studies, any research, if it doesn't line up with a person's ideology is automatically susect, and thrown the fuck out as being deemed worthless.

That's what good Liberals believe, so there you go.

The graph you are relying on is corrupt and unreliable.

Go back and pay attention to the last 5 years of video, news reports, inteviews, and radio programs. Hell, DOZENS of people are slaughtered in CHICAGO every weekend. Black men and women. Black babies and kids are slaughtered in cities throughout the country...and the vast majority of the cities that black people are being murdered in are run and governed by who again?

That's right. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Perhaps your perception (and that of my own too) is biased because of the saturation of media depicting violence? Be honest, how much more violence is shown now than in the 1990s? Also, I didn't dig into his graph, but perhaps it is showing charges or convictions based on violent crimes (both of which might be down these days for various reasons) since it might be impossible to determine how many violent acts occurred.

Convictions are certainly down when leftist DAs and Judges throughout the USA refused to arrest, charge or convict countless criminal looters, arsonists, rioters, assaulters and murderering terrorists over the last year or so.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 12, 2021, 04:37:38 PM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.

Here's the rate of violent crime per from from 1985 to 2020.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/opinions/crime/violent-crime-trend.png)

Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

That fails to support your picture that our society is steadily growing more violent and lawless. While there has been a slight increase since the low in 2014, we are still well below the high that we hit at the end of the Reagan/Bush era in 1992. (Note that the graph is not zero at the bottom, which annoys me - but it's the most up-to-date primary source.)

Greetings!

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

There's always been crime, rape, slaughter, and mayhem in the fucking ghettos. NOW, though, the violence is spreading all over the fucking place.

If you want to console yursef with some inane graph, well, good for you. I now what I see with my own eyes, and what people in normal towns and neighborhoods are experiencing NOW--and it is nothing like 30 or 40 fucking years ago.

Oh, and yeah, Jhkim. My "Lived Experience" is superior knowledge to some delusional graph. Trusting in graphs, math, and statistics is racist, and just bowing down to WHITE SUPREMACY!

I would think by now you would have gotten the memo. Any studies, any research, if it doesn't line up with a person's ideology is automatically susect, and thrown the fuck out as being deemed worthless.

That's what good Liberals believe, so there you go.

The graph you are relying on is corrupt and unreliable.

Go back and pay attention to the last 5 years of video, news reports, inteviews, and radio programs. Hell, DOZENS of people are slaughtered in CHICAGO every weekend. Black men and women. Black babies and kids are slaughtered in cities throughout the country...and the vast majority of the cities that black people are being murdered in are run and governed by who again?

That's right. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Perhaps your perception (and that of my own too) is biased because of the saturation of media depicting violence? Be honest, how much more violence is shown now than in the 1990s? Also, I didn't dig into his graph, but perhaps it is showing charges or convictions based on violent crimes (both of which might be down these days for various reasons) since it might be impossible to determine how many violent acts occurred.

Convictions are certainly down when leftist DAs and Judges throughout the USA refused to arrest, charge or convict countless criminal looters, arsonists, rioters, assaulters and murderering terrorists over the last year or so.
I agree. That would be one of those "various reasons."
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 12, 2021, 04:39:27 PM
Here's the thing: H.L. Mencken once commented that if you fight for freedom, you wind up defending a lot of scoundrels, but you have to defend them too.

The prior convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are only relevant in that they demonstrate their motivations, and even then they shouldn't be an issue. Only their ACTIONS that night matter.

And that's where the narrative shits itself and falls over. All three of them attacked or tried to attack Rittenhouse, and got shot for their troubles. Actions have consequences, after all.

Yep.  And all of these social media scholars can't grasp the idea that if, say, three guys who weren't criminally-minded convicted felons had interacted with Rittenhouse, he would have not shot them.  Some of them still think he was some kind of white supremacist hell-bent on killing black people.  In fact, I've seen one of two of them post sentiments that these three wastes of oxygen were killed because they acted black.  WTF?!?!  So child rape, burglary, and domestic abuse are getting a pass if black people do it? It's just part of their culture?!?!

As a rational thinker who watched the testimony, I would *expect* that he'll be found not guilty of all charges.  He might be found guilty of one of the lesser charges because of media pressure to find him guilty of something.  And that's the problem - too many retards and morons serving on juries who are either biased, too stupid to understand the information, or easily swayed.

Based on certain twitter posts, a large number of leftists still believe all of Rittenhouse's "victims" are black, because the mainstream media tried to present it that way to suggest Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to go murder some black people.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 04:48:34 PM
Perhaps your perception (and that of my own too) is biased because of the saturation of media depicting violence? Be honest, how much more violence is shown now than in the 1990s? Also, I didn't dig into his graph, but perhaps it is showing charges or convictions based on violent crimes (both of which might be down these days for various reasons) since it might be impossible to determine how many violent acts occurred.

Convictions are certainly down when leftist DAs and Judges throughout the USA refused to arrest, charge or convict countless criminal looters, arsonists, rioters, assaulters and murderering terrorists over the last year or so.
I agree. That would be one of those "various reasons."

I would mention again the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which was established in 1972 during Richard Nixon's administration specifically to address local police departments manipulating statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey

It surveys households directly, without any involvement of police - so it will give results regardless of police department behavior.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 12, 2021, 05:03:19 PM
Perhaps your perception (and that of my own too) is biased because of the saturation of media depicting violence? Be honest, how much more violence is shown now than in the 1990s? Also, I didn't dig into his graph, but perhaps it is showing charges or convictions based on violent crimes (both of which might be down these days for various reasons) since it might be impossible to determine how many violent acts occurred.

Convictions are certainly down when leftist DAs and Judges throughout the USA refused to arrest, charge or convict countless criminal looters, arsonists, rioters, assaulters and murderering terrorists over the last year or so.
I agree. That would be one of those "various reasons."

I would mention again the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which was established in 1972 during Richard Nixon's administration specifically to address local police departments manipulating statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey

It surveys households directly, without any involvement of police - so it will give results regardless of police department behavior.
If its handled by the census folks, does that mean that a lot of people that are at high risk of being victims of crimes are disinclined to talk with them? It's not as though everyone jumps in to talk to the census people.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 05:14:14 PM
I would mention again the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which was established in 1972 during Richard Nixon's administration specifically to address local police departments manipulating statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey

It surveys households directly, without any involvement of police - so it will give results regardless of police department behavior.
If its handled by the census folks, does that mean that a lot of people that are at high risk of being victims of crimes are disinclined to talk with them? It's not as though everyone jumps in to talk to the census people.

While inaccuracies are possible, both the regular Census and the NCVS have efforts to eliminate such bias. It's been in place since 1972, so it recorded both the rise in crime rates to the peak around 1990 and the decline in crime rates to the low point around 2015. And again, it's just a cross-check against the regular police and FBI data.

I don't see how inaccuracy in measurement would explain the observed changes over the decades.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 12, 2021, 05:41:06 PM
The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?

We keep losing wars due to politicians and generals not fighting to win.  You take the cuffs off the troops and they'll win.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 12, 2021, 06:35:24 PM
The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?

We keep losing wars due to politicians and generals not fighting to win.  You take the cuffs off the troops and they'll win.

Greetings!

That reminds me of the Mongol Empire's campaign against the Kwarazam Empire, the Baghdad Caliphate, and the other Muslim states. Genghis Khan had utterly annihilated dozens of Muslim cities--putting them to the torch, and slaughtering *millions* of Muslim people. Men, women, children--all were annihilated. Entire Muslim armies--once so proud and arrogant--had been slaughtered easily, like sheep. Hundreds of thousands of dead Muslim soldiers were stacked up in piles, and fed to the clouds of black ravens. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim women had been shackled in chains, and marched off deep into Asia, to serve the Mongol Empire as slaves.

When advance elements of the Mongol armies approached proud, rich cities throughout Khorassan, Persia, and the Levant, their Muslim populations, their nobles, their aristocratic noble leaders, met the oncoming Mongol barbarians by getting on their knees, totally unarmed, and bowing low into the dirt, begging for mercy, and begging to serve their new Mongolian Masters.

No armed resistance. No heroic fighting, or shrill cries of defiance, and the triumph of Allah.

Just weeping, and wailing, and begging for the Mongols to show them mercy.

That is how wars are won decisively.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 12, 2021, 06:36:43 PM
Convictions are certainly down when leftist DAs and Judges throughout the USA refused to arrest, charge or convict countless criminal looters, arsonists, rioters, assaulters and murderering terrorists over the last year or so.

What we're seeing is just increased sophistication in lying. That assault? It's no longer an assault, it's a psychiatric episode. When you rewrite the dictionary, crime no longer happens. Shocker.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 12, 2021, 06:59:02 PM
The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?

We keep losing wars due to politicians and generals not fighting to win.  You take the cuffs off the troops and they'll win.

With leaders like General Milley and Admiral Rachel Levine in charge?

I''ll take that bet.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 12, 2021, 07:03:43 PM
The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?

We keep losing wars due to politicians and generals not fighting to win.  You take the cuffs off the troops and they'll win.

With leaders like General Milley and Admiral Rachel Levine in charge?

I''ll take that bet.

Levine is an admiral like Cap'n Crunch is a SWO...

(that'd be a Surface Warfare Officer for those not in the know...)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 12, 2021, 08:53:20 PM
The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?

We keep losing wars due to politicians and generals not fighting to win.  You take the cuffs off the troops and they'll win.

How does that actually work? Firebombing Mexico? Executing every civilian who is coerced into protecting the cartels? Turning children of collaborators into hamburger to show them who's serious?
If we "take the cuffs off the troops",pictures of American soliders bulldozing mexican cities is gonna lose political and voter support fast. We've been there before.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 12, 2021, 09:03:09 PM
The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?

We keep losing wars due to politicians and generals not fighting to win.  You take the cuffs off the troops and they'll win.

How does that actually work? Firebombing Mexico? Executing every civilian who is coerced into protecting the cartels? Turning children of collaborators into hamburger to show them who's serious?
If we "take the cuffs off the troops",pictures of American soliders bulldozing mexican cities is gonna lose political and voter support fast. We've been there before.

So you're telling me that with the billions we've spent on the war on drugs, we have no actionable intel on the cartels...  We know who they are and who they've paid off. 

As to firebombing Mexico. I have no problems with that.  We managed to firebomb Dresden and Tokyo just fine, napalmed the shit out of Vietnam, and know how to use precision drone strikes (well, except for the Biden admin who managed to fuck that up just like everything else...)

We're don't even need to bomb them.  The Mexican military is a joke.  Just take out the cartels and their government collapses.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 12, 2021, 09:21:17 PM
Greetings!

Firebombing Mexico? That wouldn't even be necessary. At least 50% of the Mexican population would wholeheartedly welcome American intervention. Most specifically if the United States was absolutely genuine, and sincere in seeking to LIBERATE and HELP MEXICO. If our campaign was entirely transparent and above board, hell, I would imagine even MORE Mexicans would welcome our intervention.

I have had many Mexican-Americans, with many family members still living in Mexico tell me that Mexico would LOVE AMERICA to actually intervene and help them against the Drug Cartels and their corrupt as fuck government. That would very much likely work very smoothly, but only if the United States was absolutely sincere. We rub the cartels out, kill the mercenaries, wipe out corrupt government officials, and establish true liberty, freedom, and stability, then pack up and go home. Of course, working even closer with the Mexican armed forces and *good* police forces to help them every step of the way, and to protect them as the Mexicans go forth and build a new country, a new government, and new systems.

They would welcome that, I am confident.

However, with the US public so eagerly whoring itself out for every drug it can get, how do you stop more cartels from forming and starting everything all over again? Part of the problem is these cartels have *armies* of mercenaries, thugs, assassins, and spies, and BILLIONS of DOLLARS in money to spread around. HUNDREDS of BILLIONS, even. They make more money than entire national economies anywhere in South America. So, the AMERICAN whore market for endless drugs and fun is OUR problem, and that must be dealt with,or there isn't likely to be a solution for the cartels in Mexico. As long as the American drug market exists--there will be cartels seeking to establish themselves, establish dominance, to maintain supply and keep that market going.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 12, 2021, 09:37:17 PM
The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?

We keep losing wars due to politicians and generals not fighting to win.  You take the cuffs off the troops and they'll win.

Greetings!

That reminds me of the Mongol Empire's campaign against the Kwarazam Empire, the Baghdad Caliphate, and the other Muslim states. Genghis Khan had utterly annihilated dozens of Muslim cities--putting them to the torch, and slaughtering *millions* of Muslim people. Men, women, children--all were annihilated. Entire Muslim armies--once so proud and arrogant--had been slaughtered easily, like sheep. Hundreds of thousands of dead Muslim soldiers were stacked up in piles, and fed to the clouds of black ravens. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim women had been shackled in chains, and marched off deep into Asia, to serve the Mongol Empire as slaves.

When advance elements of the Mongol armies approached proud, rich cities throughout Khorassan, Persia, and the Levant, their Muslim populations, their nobles, their aristocratic noble leaders, met the oncoming Mongol barbarians by getting on their knees, totally unarmed, and bowing low into the dirt, begging for mercy, and begging to serve their new Mongolian Masters.

No armed resistance. No heroic fighting, or shrill cries of defiance, and the triumph of Allah.

Just weeping, and wailing, and begging for the Mongols to show them mercy.

That is how wars are won decisively.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
It should be noted that towns and cities that surrendered to the Mongols did not usually suffer the Khan's wrath -- not uncommon, as the Romans had a similar policy where if you surrendered before things got out of hand, your city would survive (the Latin was 'murum aries attigit', 'when the ram touches the wall' -- at that point, no surrender would be accepted).



Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 13, 2021, 05:59:49 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/LqfdM9P.png)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 15, 2021, 12:28:25 AM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.
...
Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?
Yes, it is largely sensationalism using selective stats and language. There have *always* been hundreds of violent crimes every day in the U.S., given a population of over 300 million people. So it's always possible to fill the news 24/7 with new horrendous crimes. Given dozens of types of crimes, fifty states and hundreds of cities and different time ranges, there are many selective ways to say that things are getting worse. But that's not the bigger picture for the whole country over decades.

The stats that I have been showing are directly from the FBI. I would encourage you to try out the crime stat explorer yourself to look at trends.

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

SHARK, any thoughts on this?

I think the big picture of crime rates and what is happening in the country is pretty important.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 15, 2021, 01:42:50 AM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.
...
Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?
Yes, it is largely sensationalism using selective stats and language. There have *always* been hundreds of violent crimes every day in the U.S., given a population of over 300 million people. So it's always possible to fill the news 24/7 with new horrendous crimes. Given dozens of types of crimes, fifty states and hundreds of cities and different time ranges, there are many selective ways to say that things are getting worse. But that's not the bigger picture for the whole country over decades.

The stats that I have been showing are directly from the FBI. I would encourage you to try out the crime stat explorer yourself to look at trends.

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

SHARK, any thoughts on this?

I think the big picture of crime rates and what is happening in the country is pretty important.

Greetings!

Well, I think it is an undeniable fact that crime has increased, especially violent crimes and murders.

Naturally, Leftists want to doctor up and massage the stats because they don't want to admit how much their cities are crime-filled shitholes. That kind of truth getting revealed doesn't do the Liberals any favours.

Just like we saw on national television, with fucking CNN, right in front of your face--behind them, buildings on fire, people being beaten and mayhem everywhere--but what did the CNN reporter say, as he looked right into the camera?

"It's been a largely peaceful protest!"

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 15, 2021, 07:00:46 AM
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.
...
Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?
Yes, it is largely sensationalism using selective stats and language. There have *always* been hundreds of violent crimes every day in the U.S., given a population of over 300 million people. So it's always possible to fill the news 24/7 with new horrendous crimes. Given dozens of types of crimes, fifty states and hundreds of cities and different time ranges, there are many selective ways to say that things are getting worse. But that's not the bigger picture for the whole country over decades.

The stats that I have been showing are directly from the FBI. I would encourage you to try out the crime stat explorer yourself to look at trends.

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

SHARK, any thoughts on this?

I think the big picture of crime rates and what is happening in the country is pretty important.

Greetings!

Well, I think it is an undeniable fact that crime has increased, especially violent crimes and murders.

Naturally, Leftists want to doctor up and massage the stats because they don't want to admit how much their cities are crime-filled shitholes. That kind of truth getting revealed doesn't do the Liberals any favours.

Just like we saw on national television, with fucking CNN, right in front of your face--behind them, buildings on fire, people being beaten and mayhem everywhere--but what did the CNN reporter say, as he looked right into the camera?

"It's been a largely peaceful protest!"

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Pretty much all of the commercial media are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the DNC.  Even more troubling is the complete lack of any intelligence amongst the vast majority of social media consumers.  There is an alleged screenshot of an interaction where someone stated that they thought that "mistrial with prejudice" meant that the judge was prejudiced against the prosecution.  This is disturbing for the fact that someone (which means many someones) doesn't understand basic English ( and was too lazy or stupid to look it up if they didn't understand it), no to mention that it illustrates just how easy it is to brainwash the masses using an oft-repeated narrative that on it's face is ridiculous and that collapses with a minimal amount of investigation.

I guarantee that all of the people who continue to claim racism, or illegally crossing state lines, or illegally possessing a gun have still not even bothered to look at the evidence and trial testimony.  Even the mere fact that they think the judge is supposed to let the prosecution engage in misconduct (and on purpose, at that) shows just how stupid the general public is.  We're going to see a bunch more riots - even if Rittenhouse is wrongfully convicted on a lesser.  What *needs* to happen is the guardsmen kill as many rioters as they possibly can, should rioting ensue.

Likewise, Hawke Newsome's threats of violence if the NYPD reinstates an anti-crime unit that CommieBlasio abolished need to be met with police riot cops beating, tasing, or shooting as many this as possible. 

Violent resistance to violence is the *only* thing that will stop these thugs.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 15, 2021, 11:38:23 AM
Breaking: the firearm possession charge just got tossed.

I think we're going to see not guilty. I could be wrong, but I think the chances are good. If the gun charge is out, that pretty much kills 'well he shouldn't have been there armed'. It devolves down to 'was he defending himself' and that's probably going to be a firm yes.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 15, 2021, 11:41:13 AM
Breaking: the firearm possession charge just got tossed.

I think we're going to see not guilty. I could be wrong, but I think the chances are good. If the gun charge is out, that pretty much kills 'well he shouldn't have been there armed'. It devolves down to 'was he defending himself' and that's probably going to be a firm yes.

We'll see.  The prosecution got the judge last Friday to allow a bunch of lesser included - throwing everything at him hoping something sticks.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: DM_Curt on November 15, 2021, 01:53:55 PM
So, when's GrossKreutz gonna get his gun charg.......oh wait....of course the state that allows Antifa to burn down their cities won't charge him for his illegally carried/owned weapon.
Because he's Antifa.

Pfft.


Remind me. Was he a convicted felon holding a firearm ON VIDEO, and admitting in court to having drawn it on someone, or an otherwise legal gun owner who "let his CHL lapse and forgot"?


Because I've heard both claims. The latter only recently. But either way, that's a Federal or State gun charge, depending on which.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 15, 2021, 01:58:04 PM
SHARK, any thoughts on this?

I think the big picture of crime rates and what is happening in the country is pretty important.

Well, I think it is an undeniable fact that crime has increased, especially violent crimes and murders.

Naturally, Leftists want to doctor up and massage the stats because they don't want to admit how much their cities are crime-filled shitholes. That kind of truth getting revealed doesn't do the Liberals any favours.

Just like we saw on national television, with fucking CNN...

Pretty much all of the commercial media are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the DNC.  Even more troubling is the complete lack of any intelligence amongst the vast majority of social media consumers.

But SHARK, you yourself said that some of the things that convinced you was Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino quoting police and FBI statistics. I'd agree to not trust video media. I linked directly to the police/FBI data, not to any media reports.

For example, here's a preliminary report on crime in 2017 uploaded by The Brennan Center for Justice.

https://www.scribd.com/document/358106110/Crime-in-2017-A-Preliminary-Analysis

This was explicitly endorsed by the Daily Wire here:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/good-news-violent-crime-projected-drop-2017-guess-hank-berrien

And if you read the report, you'll see exactly the same statistics that I showed earlier -- a massive drop in violent crime from 1990 to 2017. That covers the presidencies of all three of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. The report used police statistics collected by the FBI/DOJ - the same data source I linked earlier.

Are you saying that this report is complete bullshit? Or are you only doubting the numbers after 2017?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 15, 2021, 02:00:12 PM
So, when's GrossKreutz gonna get his gun charg.......oh wait....of course the state that allows Antifa to burn down their cities won't charge him for his illegally carried/owned weapon.
Because he's Antifa.

Pfft.


Remind me. Was he a convicted felon holding a firearm ON VIDEO, and admitting in court to having drawn it on someone, or an otherwise legal gun owner who "let his CHL lapse and forgot"?


Because I've heard both claims. The latter only recently. But either way, that's a Federal or State gun charge, depending on which.

Greetings!

Yeah, it is just mind boggling listening to fucking Liberals do all kinds of fucking mental and verbal gymnastics to condemn Kyle and defend total criminal scumbags.

Kyle was totally justified. He did society a favour by getting rid of some violent, scum trash. I think Kyle should get a public commendation and a nice reward. He did far more to defend and protect the local community than all of these mewling, cock-sucking Liberals have ever done.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 15, 2021, 02:03:35 PM
SHARK, any thoughts on this?

I think the big picture of crime rates and what is happening in the country is pretty important.

Well, I think it is an undeniable fact that crime has increased, especially violent crimes and murders.

Naturally, Leftists want to doctor up and massage the stats because they don't want to admit how much their cities are crime-filled shitholes. That kind of truth getting revealed doesn't do the Liberals any favours.

Just like we saw on national television, with fucking CNN...

Pretty much all of the commercial media are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the DNC.  Even more troubling is the complete lack of any intelligence amongst the vast majority of social media consumers.

But SHARK, you yourself said that some of the things that convinced you was Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino quoting police and FBI statistics. I'd agree to not trust video media. I linked directly to the police/FBI data, not to any media reports.

For example, here's a preliminary report on crime in 2017 uploaded by The Brennan Center for Justice.

https://www.scribd.com/document/358106110/Crime-in-2017-A-Preliminary-Analysis

This was explicitly endorsed by the Daily Wire here:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/good-news-violent-crime-projected-drop-2017-guess-hank-berrien

And if you read the report, you'll see exactly the same statistics that I showed earlier -- a massive drop in violent crime from 1990 to 2017. That covers the presidencies of all three of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. The report used police statistics collected by the FBI/DOJ - the same data source I linked earlier.

Are you saying that this report is complete bullshit? Or are you only doubting the numbers after 2017?

Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim, crimes have increased over the recent years. CRIME has increased, dramatically over the last year, or two, or three.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 15, 2021, 02:14:32 PM
So, when's GrossKreutz gonna get his gun charg.......oh wait....of course the state that allows Antifa to burn down their cities won't charge him for his illegally carried/owned weapon.
Because he's Antifa.

Pfft.


Remind me. Was he a convicted felon holding a firearm ON VIDEO, and admitting in court to having drawn it on someone, or an otherwise legal gun owner who "let his CHL lapse and forgot"?


Because I've heard both claims. The latter only recently. But either way, that's a Federal or State gun charge, depending on which.

Greetings!

Yeah, it is just mind boggling listening to fucking Liberals do all kinds of fucking mental and verbal gymnastics to condemn Kyle and defend total criminal scumbags.

Kyle was totally justified. He did society a favour by getting rid of some violent, scum trash. I think Kyle should get a public commendation and a nice reward. He did far more to defend and protect the local community than all of these mewling, cock-sucking Liberals have ever done.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
He should be charged. With littering. Remember, keeping the streets clean is everyone's responsibility!

In all seriousness though, watching the left twist itself sideways to try and defend the, uh, 'honor' of Rosenbaum and Huber is like watching some kind of fucked up ethical Mobius strip.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 15, 2021, 03:16:52 PM
An accidental discharge in the courtroom would have been both horrifying and fitting for this dumbass.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEQiFYpXMAAcSia?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: moonsweeper on November 15, 2021, 03:55:59 PM
An accidental negligent discharge in the courtroom would have been both horrifying and fitting for this dumbass.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEQiFYpXMAAcSia?format=jpg&name=medium)

FTFY
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 15, 2021, 03:57:18 PM
The defense's closing seems to be going ok.  We'll see if the jury is full of morons or not.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 15, 2021, 04:06:23 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim, crimes have increased over the recent years. CRIME has increased, dramatically over the last year, or two, or three.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

How can crime be increasing when the California has changed their state law to make crimes like shop lifting legal?

SHARK who are you going to believe? The official statistics or your own lying eyes?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 15, 2021, 04:32:40 PM
And if you read the report, you'll see exactly the same statistics that I showed earlier -- a massive drop in violent crime from 1990 to 2017. That covers the presidencies of all three of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. The report used police statistics collected by the FBI/DOJ - the same data source I linked earlier.

Are you saying that this report is complete bullshit? Or are you only doubting the numbers after 2017?

Yeah, Jhkim, crimes have increased over the recent years. CRIME has increased, dramatically over the last year, or two, or three.

How can crime be increasing when the California has changed their state law to make crimes like shop lifting legal?

SHARK who are you going to believe? The official statistics or your own lying eyes?

So can that even be investigated or discussed, or is it a matter of faith?

Ben Shapiro and other authors at the Daily Wire have cited police crime reports as believable data - like the 2017 example I just posted. SHARK himself cited how Shapiro and Dan Bongino posted police/FBI crime reports.

Is there any objective evidence of crime that can be looked at critically and discussed?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 15, 2021, 07:44:40 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim, crimes have increased over the recent years. CRIME has increased, dramatically over the last year, or two, or three.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

How can crime be increasing when the California has changed their state law to make crimes like shop lifting legal?

SHARK who are you going to believe? The official statistics or your own lying eyes?
Brilliant! If everything's legal, there will be no crime, and then we can completely defund the police!
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 15, 2021, 09:42:08 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim, crimes have increased over the recent years. CRIME has increased, dramatically over the last year, or two, or three.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

How can crime be increasing when the California has changed their state law to make crimes like shop lifting legal?

SHARK who are you going to believe? The official statistics or your own lying eyes?
Brilliant! If everything's legal, there will be no crime, and then we can completely defund the police!

Greetings!

Yeah! ;D

That reminds me, the city of New York, and I think more in New Jersey, etc, all mandated that panhandling, prostitution, and god knows what else were no longer criminal activity, and law enforcement would no longer make arrests involving any of these criminal activities.

Just like the Mayor of Portland declared that BLM and ANTIFA rioters and thgs would not be arrested or charged with anything at all. The city of Portland refused to enforce the laws.

How many robberies, rapes, and murders occurred? Arsons, burnings, vandalism, and more mayhem, all ILLEGAL. How many, I wonder? How many good citizens were victimized by the fucking BLM and ANTIFA thugs while the city and state government just looked on and laughed?

Yeah. Crime going down my ass. We are living in a fucking dystopian shithole more and more every fucking day, thanks to the cock-sucking Liberals.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 15, 2021, 10:26:22 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim, crimes have increased over the recent years. CRIME has increased, dramatically over the last year, or two, or three.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

How can crime be increasing when the California has changed their state law to make crimes like shop lifting legal?

SHARK who are you going to believe? The official statistics or your own lying eyes?
Brilliant! If everything's legal, there will be no crime, and then we can completely defund the police!

Greetings!

Yeah! ;D

That reminds me, the city of New York, and I think more in New Jersey, etc, all mandated that panhandling, prostitution, and god knows what else were no longer criminal activity, and law enforcement would no longer make arrests involving any of these criminal activities.

Just like the Mayor of Portland declared that BLM and ANTIFA rioters and thgs would not be arrested or charged with anything at all. The city of Portland refused to enforce the laws.

How many robberies, rapes, and murders occurred? Arsons, burnings, vandalism, and more mayhem, all ILLEGAL. How many, I wonder? How many good citizens were victimized by the fucking BLM and ANTIFA thugs while the city and state government just looked on and laughed?

Yeah. Crime going down my ass. We are living in a fucking dystopian shithole more and more every fucking day, thanks to the cock-sucking Liberals.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It's called Anarcho-Tyranny, SHARK.
https://westernman.org/anarcho-tyranny/ (https://westernman.org/anarcho-tyranny/)

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 16, 2021, 02:27:39 AM
Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim, crimes have increased over the recent years. CRIME has increased, dramatically over the last year, or two, or three.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

How can crime be increasing when the California has changed their state law to make crimes like shop lifting legal?

SHARK who are you going to believe? The official statistics or your own lying eyes?
Brilliant! If everything's legal, there will be no crime, and then we can completely defund the police!

Greetings!

Yeah! ;D

That reminds me, the city of New York, and I think more in New Jersey, etc, all mandated that panhandling, prostitution, and god knows what else were no longer criminal activity, and law enforcement would no longer make arrests involving any of these criminal activities.

Just like the Mayor of Portland declared that BLM and ANTIFA rioters and thgs would not be arrested or charged with anything at all. The city of Portland refused to enforce the laws.

How many robberies, rapes, and murders occurred? Arsons, burnings, vandalism, and more mayhem, all ILLEGAL. How many, I wonder? How many good citizens were victimized by the fucking BLM and ANTIFA thugs while the city and state government just looked on and laughed?

Yeah. Crime going down my ass. We are living in a fucking dystopian shithole more and more every fucking day, thanks to the cock-sucking Liberals.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It's called Anarcho-Tyranny, SHARK.
https://westernman.org/anarcho-tyranny/ (https://westernman.org/anarcho-tyranny/)
No, it's fascism. Antifa are the new brown or black shirts. The thugs who act outside the law to terrorize those who might dare to oppose those in power, without those in power having to dirty their hands too much.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 16, 2021, 09:43:48 AM
Back OT.

1. They charged him less than 48 hours afterwards meaning they were trying to appease the twitteratti/mob/woke-scolds. On top of that the overcharged him, likely in the hope of getting something to stick.

2. The ADA should at minimum be censured if not disbarred for his antics, namely trying to pull up the fact Rittenhouse chose to remain silent. Apparently the right to remain silent doesn’t exist to Binger. That’s basic law that even non-lawyers know. He might want to look up the US Constitution along with Miranda vs Arizona.

3. I expect there will be a conviction on some lesser charge along the lines of manslaughter.

4. The case should have been dismissed with prejudice based on point #2 above.

5. The media got a lot of this wrong, no surprise there. Even now places like CNN are still claiming he crossed state lines with an illegal weapon to posses. That was thrown out, and it’s not illegal to cross state lines.

6. It’s readily apparent charges were brought not with the facts but with a view of how the left views justice. Go to any leftward site (Huff Post, Salon, etc) and read the stories and how they are worded and what they omit. The comments on some sites is likewise an interesting read.

7. He should be found not guilty on all counts. Should he have been there, likely not. But when you have multiple people assaulting and/or chasing you? Let alone one with a gun pointing it at you?

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 16, 2021, 09:50:06 AM
Back OT.

1. They charged him less than 48 hours afterwards meaning they were trying to appease the twitteratti/mob/woke-scolds.

2. The ADA should at minimum be censured if not disbarred for his antics, namely trying to pull up the fact Rittenhouse chose to remain silent. Apparently the right to remain silent doesn’t exist to Binger. That’s basic law that even non-lawyer know.

3. I expect there will be a conviction on some lesser charge along the lines of manslaughter.

4. The case should have been dismissed with prejudice based on point #2 above.

5. The media got a lot of this wrong, no surprise there. Even now places like CNN are still claiming he crossed state lines with an illegal weapon to posses. That was thrown out, and it’s not illegal to cross state lines.

6. It’s readily apparent charges were brought not with the facts but with a view of how the left views justice. Go to any leftward site (Huff Post, Salon, etc) and read the stories and how they are worded and what they omit. The comments on some sites is likewise an interesting read.

7. He should be going not guilty on all counts. Should he have been there, likely not. But when you have multiple people assaulting and/or chasing you? Let alone one with a gun pointing it at you?

The important thing is that in WI, the jury has no say in the sentencing.  So long as there's no mandatory minimum, the judge can decide time served, community service, whatever.  Or he could actually vacate the verdict if it is clear that they ignored his instructions.  The prosecution's hope is that there will be a hung jury so they can try again.  The fact that the prosecution stepped over the line of constitutionality a 2nd (3rd?) time during closing should have resulted in a mistrial with prejudice. 

The fact that during closing, Binger grabbed the rifle, didn't clear the chamber and then pointed in the direction of the jury and then pulled the trigger should be grounds for some type of punitive action against him.  One could only have hoped that he had a negligent discharge...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 16, 2021, 09:51:04 AM
And to add as a separate thought? I hope some places, celebs and politicians have good lawyers. Rittenhouse should be looking to sue multiple outlets and I think he has grounds to be able to do so.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 16, 2021, 09:56:41 AM
The fact that during closing, Binger grabbed the rifle, didn't clear the chamber and then pointed in the direction of the jury and then pulled the trigger should be grounds for some type of punitive action against him.  One could only have hoped that he had a negligent discharge...

The should have arrested him on the spot.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 16, 2021, 09:59:37 AM
Back OT.

1. They charged him less than 48 hours afterwards meaning they were trying to appease the twitteratti/mob/woke-scolds.

2. The ADA should at minimum be censured if not disbarred for his antics, namely trying to pull up the fact Rittenhouse chose to remain silent. Apparently the right to remain silent doesn’t exist to Binger. That’s basic law that even non-lawyer know.

3. I expect there will be a conviction on some lesser charge along the lines of manslaughter.

4. The case should have been dismissed with prejudice based on point #2 above.

5. The media got a lot of this wrong, no surprise there. Even now places like CNN are still claiming he crossed state lines with an illegal weapon to posses. That was thrown out, and it’s not illegal to cross state lines.

6. It’s readily apparent charges were brought not with the facts but with a view of how the left views justice. Go to any leftward site (Huff Post, Salon, etc) and read the stories and how they are worded and what they omit. The comments on some sites is likewise an interesting read.

7. He should be going not guilty on all counts. Should he have been there, likely not. But when you have multiple people assaulting and/or chasing you? Let alone one with a gun pointing it at you?

The important thing is that in WI, the jury has no say in the sentencing.  So long as there's no mandatory minimum, the judge can decide time served, community service, whatever.  Or he could actually vacate the verdict if it is clear that they ignored his instructions.  The prosecution's hope is that there will be a hung jury so they can try again.  The fact that the prosecution stepped over the line of constitutionality a 2nd (3rd?) time during closing should have resulted in a mistrial with prejudice. 

The fact that during closing, Binger grabbed the rifle, didn't clear the chamber and then pointed in the direction of the jury and then pulled the trigger should be grounds for some type of punitive action against him.  One could only have hoped that he had a negligent discharge...
When I saw the photo of him holding the rifle it confirmed what we already knew: he has no idea what he is doing with a gun; also questionable if he understands the law.

The fact that he was doing so much wrong with that rifle? I actually heard left leaning posters on other sites try to explain it away as “it was checked and confirmed to be empty…”  ::) yeah know, that would be another broken rule(s), aka always assume it’s it’s loaded. Don’t know about you but I was taught the following (amongst others).

1. Every gun is loaded until you verify it’s not
2. Even if it’s not loaded treat it like it is.
3 If someone hands you a gun, check to see if a round is chambered even if they just checked it in front of you. YOU need to verify it’s not loaded and then treat it as if it were.
4. Never point it anywhere other than it’s time to line up on your target.
5. Keep the booger hook of the bang button until it’s time to shoot.
6. Be aware of your backdrop, aka what’s behind where you are shooting

Etc, aka a whole bunch more rules.

Seems this ADA never learned any of this of which I am not surprised.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 16, 2021, 10:09:37 AM
Quote
It's called Anarcho-Tyranny, SHARK.
https://westernman.org/anarcho-tyranny/ (https://westernman.org/anarcho-tyranny/)
No, it's fascism. Antifa are the new brown or black shirts. The thugs who act outside the law to terrorize those who might dare to oppose those in power, without those in power having to dirty their hands too much.

I agree. Anarcho-tyranny is one of fascism's methods.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 16, 2021, 10:13:25 AM
I can't even see how you'd sustain a charge of manslaughter.

Edgy jokes aside about how Rittenhouse didn't actually kill people, all three were committing to offensive actions against him. It's open-and-shut self defense.

I could maybe see the McGinniss reckless endangerment charge, maybe if I'd had a few drinks, but the problem there comes back to Rittenhouse getting attacked by pedophile creep. This wasn't a case of Rittenhouse firing into the air (like the idiot ADA suggested he should have, holy shit).

I'm amazed they keep making the argument about 'he shouldn't have been there'. While I've remarked disapprovingly on Kyle being there, that's not a legal argument. Worse, exactly WHO is making the decision that the only people allowed on the street are the rioters? Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but I really wonder why the DA's office quashed the subpoena and investigation into Grosskreutz's phone.

I gotta say, though, Kraus, the fat guy, had an amazingly smooth-brained imbecilic take. 'Oh, he should have just taken his beating and fought with his fists.'

Holy. Fucking. Shit. That is SO not the standard for self-defense and letting a goddamned mob beat you into a fucking coma is not 'just some scrapes'. I actually hate Kraus more than I hate Binger now.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 16, 2021, 11:46:03 AM
I can't even see how you'd sustain a charge of manslaughter.

Edgy jokes aside about how Rittenhouse didn't actually kill people, all three were committing to offensive actions against him. It's open-and-shut self defense.

I could maybe see the McGinniss reckless endangerment charge, maybe if I'd had a few drinks, but the problem there comes back to Rittenhouse getting attacked by pedophile creep. This wasn't a case of Rittenhouse firing into the air (like the idiot ADA suggested he should have, holy shit).

I'm amazed they keep making the argument about 'he shouldn't have been there'. While I've remarked disapprovingly on Kyle being there, that's not a legal argument. Worse, exactly WHO is making the decision that the only people allowed on the street are the rioters? Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but I really wonder why the DA's office quashed the subpoena and investigation into Grosskreutz's phone.

I gotta say, though, Kraus, the fat guy, had an amazingly smooth-brained imbecilic take. 'Oh, he should have just taken his beating and fought with his fists.'

Holy. Fucking. Shit. That is SO not the standard for self-defense and letting a goddamned mob beat you into a fucking coma is not 'just some scrapes'. I actually hate Kraus more than I hate Binger now.

I hate them both because they are the open-book view of what a lot of prosecutors do behind closed doors.  It's not about justice, it's about a "win" for them.

I'm a little leery that there are 7 women in the jury - they have (usually) less of an instinctive understanding of the use of violence and when it is appropriate.  One would hope that some of the women own businesses in Kenosha that were burned to the ground by these rioters.

Maybe I'm of a different generation - it's 100% clear that he is innocent.  It's 100% obvious to the most casual of observers that the rioters deserved exactly what they got. It's a bonus that he took out two wastes of oxygen and (hopefully) provided rudder orders to the 3rd that will result in a course correction to his lifepath...  The only non-optimal outcome is he only was able to get 3 scumbag convicted felons off the street.

Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

They argue that he shouldn't have had a weapon or the shootings would not have occurred. Yes, but... If the cops weren't outnumbered they could have gotten the rioters into custody before they chased him. If the governor had deployed the national guard, they could have gotten the rioters into custody before they chased him.  The real answer is those three turds wouldn't have been shot if they had not been rioting and attempting to kill someone for trying to put out the fire they started.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 16, 2021, 12:50:07 PM
The fact that during closing, Binger grabbed the rifle, didn't clear the chamber and then pointed in the direction of the jury and then pulled the trigger should be grounds for some type of punitive action against him.  One could only have hoped that he had a negligent discharge...
wut

Why isn't he in fucking jail?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Joey2k on November 16, 2021, 02:33:56 PM

Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

Whether he should have been there is irrelevant. The only pertinent question is whether he was legally allowed to be there.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 16, 2021, 02:35:26 PM
Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

Exactly. The rioters were the ones who instigated the whole situation. But we've been treated to a media narrative about Rittenhouse that intentionally ignores that.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 16, 2021, 02:36:28 PM

Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

Whether he should have been there is irrelevant. The only pertinent question is whether he was legally allowed to be there.
And the answer is yes.

The curfew charge was dropped; the state couldn't produce proof there actually WAS a curfew (and I imagine they did not want anyone asking exactly why the rioters weren't in violation but everyone else was).
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 16, 2021, 03:06:09 PM

Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

Whether he should have been there is irrelevant. The only pertinent question is whether he was legally allowed to be there.
And the answer is yes.

The curfew charge was dropped; the state couldn't produce proof there actually WAS a curfew (and I imagine they did not want anyone asking exactly why the rioters weren't in violation but everyone else was).

Yep.  Other troubling info.  They just *now* identified jump kick man as a career criminal. I wonder why they waited until after the trial to identify him...

Additionally, someone pointed out that the software used by the prosecution to "enhance" the video expressly states that image enhancement with AI may be ok for investigation, but not evidentiary purposes.  Open the door to appeal if there is a rogue jury.  There are 6 other jurors in the event one or more of them choose to not follow the judge's directives - one would hope that the judge would interview them to determine if their decision is based on having a bias against Rittenhouse.

I mean - this is a textbook self-defense case.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Kiero on November 16, 2021, 04:08:12 PM
Who taught Rittenhouse how to shoot? Considering the situation he was in, that was stellar self control and accuracy.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 16, 2021, 04:35:50 PM
Who taught Rittenhouse how to shoot? Considering the situation he was in, that was stellar self control and accuracy.
I think I read somewhere he had only shot about 200 rounds prior. That’s not enough to really acquire a skill. I think in this case he was more “lucky than good”, but I think that’s a saying for a reason. Most (all?) of his shots were at targets within 4 feet, so that helps explain the accuracy part. The element of self control is more arguably a matter of his demeanor. I think his decision to go out on patrol that night was foolish (not illegal), but it’s easy to imagine how that night could have turned out a whole lot worse with someone panicking into thinking every single person around him was a lethal threat. Fortunately he didn’t panic, at least not to that degree - I don’t think Rittenhouse is an action movie hero able to maintain a Clint Eastwood level of cool, I’m sure he panicked at least a little, but it didn’t control his actions that night.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 16, 2021, 05:41:39 PM
TBP still has people who think Rittenhouse shot black people. Jesus weeps.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/mostly-us-non-election-law-stuff-megathread-iii-more-things-you-never-want-to-hear-a-judge-say.883092/post-24131826
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Joey2k on November 16, 2021, 05:47:53 PM
Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 16, 2021, 06:05:01 PM
Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

Poso is reporting that a US Marshal in Kenosha had indicated 10 not guilty with 2 jurors who are specifically holding out for fear of blm/antifa backlash and MSM doxxing.  That right there would be enough for a mistrial with prejudice or of removal of those 2 jurors for specifically going against the judge's order to ignore opinions from everyone.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Joey2k on November 16, 2021, 06:34:41 PM
Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

It doesn't matter for the trial. It matters for my own personal curiosity
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: FingerRod on November 16, 2021, 06:37:01 PM
Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

Poso is reporting that a US Marshal in Kenosha had indicated 10 not guilty with 2 jurors who are specifically holding out for fear of blm/antifa backlash and MSM doxxing.  That right there would be enough for a mistrial with prejudice or of removal of those 2 jurors for specifically going against the judge's order to ignore opinions from everyone.

If this is accurate, the two holdouts will likely cave. A hung jury gives them no shelter from these thugs.

I have my doubts though. Prosecution did not make their case, yet the defense still put him on the stand. I know they spun it, but they subjected their easy win to a lot of risk.

Despite being 100% innocent, I can’t shake the feeling they will cave to the pressure and convict.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: moonsweeper on November 16, 2021, 06:44:38 PM
Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

Poso is reporting that a US Marshal in Kenosha had indicated 10 not guilty with 2 jurors who are specifically holding out for fear of blm/antifa backlash and MSM doxxing.  That right there would be enough for a mistrial with prejudice or of removal of those 2 jurors for specifically going against the judge's order to ignore opinions from everyone.

If this is accurate, the two holdouts will likely cave. A hung jury gives them no shelter from these thugs.

I have my doubts though. Prosecution did not make their case, yet the defense still put him on the stand. I know they spun it, but they subjected their easy win to a lot of risk.

Despite being 100% innocent, I can’t shake the feeling they will cave to the pressure and convict.

I would guess they put him on the stand for 2 reasons precisely because it is a slam dunk self defense case from a purely legal perspective.

1.  It will leave no question as to the political bias of the situation and that the authorities are allowing/welcoming jury intimidation.
2.  Kyle's testimony is available for the appeal if the political railroading actually occurs.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: FingerRod on November 16, 2021, 06:56:12 PM
Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

Poso is reporting that a US Marshal in Kenosha had indicated 10 not guilty with 2 jurors who are specifically holding out for fear of blm/antifa backlash and MSM doxxing.  That right there would be enough for a mistrial with prejudice or of removal of those 2 jurors for specifically going against the judge's order to ignore opinions from everyone.

If this is accurate, the two holdouts will likely cave. A hung jury gives them no shelter from these thugs.

I have my doubts though. Prosecution did not make their case, yet the defense still put him on the stand. I know they spun it, but they subjected their easy win to a lot of risk.

Despite being 100% innocent, I can’t shake the feeling they will cave to the pressure and convict.

I would guess they put him on the stand for 2 reasons precisely because it is a slam dunk self defense case from a purely legal perspective.

1.  It will leave no question as to the political bias of the situation and that the authorities are allowing/welcoming jury intimidation.
2.  Kyle's testimony is available for the appeal if the political railroading actually occurs.

Perhaps. Hope I’m wrong.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 16, 2021, 07:47:10 PM
Honestly, my money was on a hung jury or mistrial.

On one hand, yeah, open and shut and if it hadn't been the Democrat's quasi-tamed monster that got the bloody nose, this wouldn't have even gone to trial. But y'know, having non-uniformed shock troops is very useful; ask the Communists and the Nazis, after all. And the proggies really do not want the proles to start getting the idea that if the cops get stood down, it's open season on some shithead trying to set fires.

And that doesn't even get into the massive media disinformation campaign (and if Rittenhouse walks, the first thing he needs to do is hire a really good defamation lawyer), or the attempts at extrajudicial intimidation (assuming you believe Posobiec at least two jurors have expressed worry about being doxed).

But still... sometimes you roll a natural 20. We can hope.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 16, 2021, 08:04:54 PM
Honestly, my money was on a hung jury or mistrial.

On one hand, yeah, open and shut and if it hadn't been the Democrat's quasi-tamed monster that got the bloody nose, this wouldn't have even gone to trial. But y'know, having non-uniformed shock troops is very useful; ask the Communists and the Nazis, after all. And the proggies really do not want the proles to start getting the idea that if the cops get stood down, it's open season on some shithead trying to set fires.

And that doesn't even get into the massive media disinformation campaign (and if Rittenhouse walks, the first thing he needs to do is hire a really good defamation lawyer), or the attempts at extrajudicial intimidation (assuming you believe Posobiec at least two jurors have expressed worry about being doxed).

But still... sometimes you roll a natural 20. We can hope.

I've yet to see Poso be wrong.  Given his ability to do what "former" intelligence officers are able to do, I just hope I never get on his bad side...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 16, 2021, 08:47:40 PM
Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

It doesn't matter for the trial. It matters for my own personal curiosity

Evidently a car sales company asked people to help defend their property and then got on the stand saying that they didnt do nuffin and the selfies they took with Rittenhouse were because they always take selfies with random strangers.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 16, 2021, 09:12:32 PM
I can't even see how you'd sustain a charge of manslaughter.
I don't either, its simply a question of the mob has to have some sort of justice, facts be damned.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 16, 2021, 09:49:06 PM
I can't even see how you'd sustain a charge of manslaughter.
I don't either, its simply a question of the mob has to have some sort of justice, facts be damned.
That's an interesting use of of the word "justice". Reminds me a lot of how "insurrection" or "peaceful protests" or "white supremacy" have come to be used.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: moonsweeper on November 17, 2021, 12:03:30 AM
I can't even see how you'd sustain a charge of manslaughter.
I don't either, its simply a question of the mob has to have some sort of justice, facts be damned.
That's an interesting use of of the word "justice". Reminds me a lot of how "insurrection" or "peaceful protests" or "white supremacy" have come to be used.
I think that's why he put it in italics.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 17, 2021, 06:55:57 AM
I can't even see how you'd sustain a charge of manslaughter.
I don't either, its simply a question of the mob has to have some sort of justice, facts be damned.
That's an interesting use of of the word "justice". Reminds me a lot of how "insurrection" or "peaceful protests" or "white supremacy" have come to be used.
I think that's why he put it in italics.
Correct.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 17, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
If this is true, case should immediately be thrown out. Just the latest show of mendacity on the part of the prosecution:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/rittenhouse-defense-team-accuses-prosecutors-of-withholding-evidence-seeks-mistrial/
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 17, 2021, 10:43:37 AM
Follow up to my last, here are the two versions:
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1460817422294863874?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1460817422294863874%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthepostmillennial.com%2Frittenhouse-defense-team-files-motion-that-prosecutors-withheld-video-evidence

Case should be dismissed and thrown out with prejudice.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 17, 2021, 11:36:27 AM
To put this in perspective, withholding exculpatory evidence was what got Mike Nifong hammered in the wake of the Duke lacrosse team case.

You do not do this. You do not EVER do this. I don't care if the defendant is so white H.P. Lovecraft would cuddle them, or if he's the blackest guy off the boat from West Africa. You. Do. Not. Withhold. Exculpatory. Evidence.

There is a REASON we set the process up this way.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 17, 2021, 11:39:48 AM
To put this in perspective, withholding exculpatory evidence was what got Mike Nifong hammered in the wake of the Duke lacrosse team case.

You do not do this. You do not EVER do this. I don't care if the defendant is so white H.P. Lovecraft would cuddle them, or if he's the blackest guy off the boat from West Africa. You. Do. Not. Withhold. Exculpatory. Evidence.

There is a REASON we set the process up this way.

Begs the question - are Lunch Box and Littlebinger that incompetent, are they that smug about doing things that are blatantly wrong because other judges didn't do their jobs in the past, or did they know this was a no-win case and decided to take a dive?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: moonsweeper on November 17, 2021, 11:41:40 AM
To put this in perspective, withholding exculpatory evidence was what got Mike Nifong hammered in the wake of the Duke lacrosse team case.

You do not do this. You do not EVER do this. I don't care if the defendant is so white H.P. Lovecraft would cuddle them, or if he's the blackest guy off the boat from West Africa. You. Do. Not. Withhold. Exculpatory. Evidence.

There is a REASON we set the process up this way.


Begs the question - are Lunch Box and Littlebinger that incompetent, are they that smug about doing things that are blatantly wrong because other judges didn't do their jobs in the past, or did they know this was a no-win case and decided to take a dive?

They assumed they could pull a kangaroo court decision for political ends like Chauvin...they are just that arrogant.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 17, 2021, 12:16:35 PM
To put this in perspective, withholding exculpatory evidence was what got Mike Nifong hammered in the wake of the Duke lacrosse team case.

You do not do this. You do not EVER do this. I don't care if the defendant is so white H.P. Lovecraft would cuddle them, or if he's the blackest guy off the boat from West Africa. You. Do. Not. Withhold. Exculpatory. Evidence.

There is a REASON we set the process up this way.
Anyone got what the penalties are for doing so in Wisconsin?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 17, 2021, 01:03:00 PM
I can't even see how you'd sustain a charge of manslaughter.
I don't either, its simply a question of the mob has to have some sort of justice, facts be damned.
That's an interesting use of of the word "justice". Reminds me a lot of how "insurrection" or "peaceful protests" or "white supremacy" have come to be used.
I think that's why he put it in italics.
That's what I assumed.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 17, 2021, 02:22:29 PM
HOLEE SHIT! The judge is going to place the prosecutors under oath to testify about sending different video to the defense than what they played at trial after hearing Lunchbox claim that it must have been because the defense used Android phones and they couldn't airdrop so they emailed - blaming the defense for their choice of phone.  The defense responded that they were different filenames then what was played at trial and the video was the *only* piece of evidence that they didn't Dropbox to the defense.

I'm sure Littlebinger's inside voice is going "OH FUCK! OH SHIT!! OH FUCK!!!"
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 17, 2021, 02:31:39 PM
HOLEE SHIT! The judge is going to place the prosecutors under oath to testify about sending different video to the defense than what they played at trial after hearing Lunchbox claim that it must have been because the defense used Android phones and they couldn't airdrop so they emailed - blaming the defense for their choice of phone.  The defense responded that they were different filenames then what was played at trial and the video was the *only* piece of evidence that they didn't Dropbox to the defense.

I'm sure Littlebinger's inside voice is going "OH FUCK! OH SHIT!! OH FUCK!!!"
Yeah, the problem is that he's not going to DO anything about it.

Stronger cases have been violently yeeted out of a court for less than this.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 17, 2021, 02:42:25 PM
HOLEE SHIT! The judge is going to place the prosecutors under oath to testify about sending different video to the defense than what they played at trial after hearing Lunchbox claim that it must have been because the defense used Android phones and they couldn't airdrop so they emailed - blaming the defense for their choice of phone.  The defense responded that they were different filenames then what was played at trial and the video was the *only* piece of evidence that they didn't Dropbox to the defense.

I'm sure Littlebinger's inside voice is going "OH FUCK! OH SHIT!! OH FUCK!!!"
Yeah, the problem is that he's not going to DO anything about it.

Stronger cases have been violently yeeted out of a court for less than this.

We'll see.  I would think that if they're under oath and they admit to chicanery, the judge pretty much has to do a mistrial with prejudice - the fact that only this video was emailed rather than dropboxed and it was key to the claim of provocation, it goes to bad faith on the part of the prosecution.  Or they could lie under oath at risk of being disbarred.  Even if they get fired for fucking up the case, they'd still at least be able to go represent antifa scum of they aren't found to have perjured themselves.

At this point, there is no remedy to the fact that the prosecutors have prejudiced the defendant.  It also eliminates the need to address the 2 holdout jurors' refusal to acquit based upon fear of the mob.  I am going to go out on a limb in stating that the judge is likely an old-school liberal in the original sense who actually knows how to handle a weapon and would have no problem defending himself against a mob if the case gets tossed.

***EDIT***

OMG - the file they sent to the defense was created 21 minutes after the file they sent to the lab and played at the trial.  Judge needs to shitcan this case right now.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 17, 2021, 04:14:05 PM
The judge is indicative of the problem we have in the country as a whole.

Talks a lot about adhering to the law, and willing to wag his finger at wrongdoing by the Left, but is too afraid of regime propaganda to actually punish said wrongdoing and stick to the law (even when it's unpopular).
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 17, 2021, 04:18:16 PM
This keeps getting “better”:

https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1461078850511810565?s=21
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 17, 2021, 04:37:10 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEbMN3HUcAEnjPL?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: FingerRod on November 18, 2021, 05:16:38 PM
This kid is toast. Hung jury is best case. Under any other circumstance, this would have been decided in hours, not days.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 18, 2021, 05:22:08 PM
Hate to agree but I’m guessing you’re right.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 18, 2021, 05:36:15 PM
This kid is toast. Hung jury is best case. Under any other circumstance, this would have been decided in hours, not days.

The rumour that I heard was that a Karen had been chosen as jury foreman and is trying, unsuccessfully to shaft Kyle.

The question is whether the brave jurors can resist her tyranny or will fold to get home for Thanks Giving.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 18, 2021, 06:27:51 PM
This kid is toast. Hung jury is best case. Under any other circumstance, this would have been decided in hours, not days.

The rumour that I heard was that a Karen had been chosen as jury foreman and is trying, unsuccessfully to shaft Kyle.

The question is whether the brave jurors can resist her tyranny or will fold to get home for Thanks Giving.

I'm not against them beating the shit out of tuning up the foreman if needed.  We all know those insufferable cunts - they're the same ones who run PTAs and lord over everyone on HOAs.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 18, 2021, 06:31:01 PM
This kid is toast. Hung jury is best case. Under any other circumstance, this would have been decided in hours, not days.

The rumour that I heard was that a Karen had been chosen as jury foreman and is trying, unsuccessfully to shaft Kyle.

The question is whether the brave jurors can resist her tyranny or will fold to get home for Thanks Giving.

I'm not against them beating the shit out of tuning up the foreman if needed.  We're all know those insufferable cunts - they're the same ones who run PTAs and lord over everyone on HOAs.
Fortunately, the Attorney General of Wokeness is siccing the FBI on those Karens.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: FingerRod on November 18, 2021, 06:49:35 PM
If a retrial happens, it will be interesting to see if they opt for a bench trial.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 18, 2021, 07:22:23 PM
Greetings!

I sometimes wonder how these kinds of Karen cunts come about. They are in a position to actually supervise and ensure justice is pursued through our court system, and yet, perversely, they have this deep-seated JOY in telling you, the rest of the jury, and society, FUCK YOU! I WANT WHAT I WANT! Justice be damned.

I was a member of a Capital Jury, and we actually had a Karen woman just like this. We complained to the Judge, that she was obviously ignoring his instructions to the Jury, and he told her to get fucked, and she was summarily dismissed. She was then immediately replaced by an alternate Juror, and we proceeded with our deliberations. We came to a unanimous judgement that the defendant was guilty on all counts, and we sentenced the vicious criminal to DEATH.

The Karen CUNT wanted to vote NOT GUILTY...because of "reasons". She insisted that she had an inner tuition that said that someone else, somehow, was guilty for the crimes of capital murder, torture, kidnapping, while citing no meaningful, fact-based evidence whatsoever. She was a FAT, SOBBING, LIBERAL CUNT.

That trial I participated in was many years ago, now. I see that our society continues to create these kinds of fucking Liberal cunt morons. So sad. They all need to gargle with napalm.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 18, 2021, 07:38:55 PM
Here's the thing, it's unlikely there will be a not-guilty verdict at this point (though not impossible) but it's also clearly very unlikely of a guilty verdict.

The DA could try all over again, but given how badly they blew it this time, and how evident the course of the last trial made the case for self-defense, they would only be betting on hoping for a rigged jury.

There's also the possibility, given that he has not yet ruled, that the Judge might decide to Dismiss With Prejudice. I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand, he could choose to do this AFTER hearing the verdict, which might explain why he hasn't done this already (since he clearly and rightly believes that it's justified). The Judge would rather that the Jury did the dirty work for him, but he might (I hope) be brave enough to do it himself if the jury cannot decide to.

And again, ALL of this is happening because TERRORISTS are threatening to murder anyone who they feel is responsible for not sentencing an 18 year old boy who did nothing wrong to what would likely be a death sentence in jail. And the Establishment Media are openly aiding and abetting these terrorists' intimidation tactics.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 18, 2021, 07:40:10 PM
Greetings!

I sometimes wonder how these kinds of Karen cunts come about. They are in a position to actually supervise and ensure justice is pursued through our court system, and yet, perversely, they have this deep-seated JOY in telling you, the rest of the jury, and society, FUCK YOU! I WANT WHAT I WANT! Justice be damned.
You must really, really hate 12 Angry Men.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on November 18, 2021, 07:48:59 PM
They are in a position to actually supervise and ensure justice is pursued through our court system, and yet, perversely, they have this deep-seated JOY in telling you, the rest of the jury, and society, FUCK YOU! I WANT WHAT I WANT! Justice be damned.
You must really, really hate 12 Angry Men.

I was just about to cite that example. Everybody wants to see themselves as Juror #8 in that story, and the tragedy is that if there are holdouts on the jury for the sake of "punishing who really deserves it", they're actually probably more like Juror #3, determined to gain satisfaction for an unresolved grudge that has only the barest affiliation with the actual defendant.

I often find that the first step in understanding why anybody does what they do is to think, "Everybody sees themselves as the hero in their own story, which means they always see what they're setting themselves against as the villain." Figure out why someone would see that opposition as villainous, and you're halfway there.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 18, 2021, 08:06:14 PM
There's also the possibility, given that he has not yet ruled, that the Judge might decide to Dismiss With Prejudice. I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand, he could choose to do this AFTER hearing the verdict, which might explain why he hasn't done this already (since he clearly and rightly believes that it's justified). The Judge would rather that the Jury did the dirty work for him, but he might (I hope) be brave enough to do it himself if the jury cannot decide to.

From what I have heard, if the Judge waits for the jury to make a verdict and then decides to dismiss then that can be appealed by the State.

It would be better for Kyle if he did it now but he seems to have trusted in the jury to come to the right decision.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 18, 2021, 08:42:59 PM
They are in a position to actually supervise and ensure justice is pursued through our court system, and yet, perversely, they have this deep-seated JOY in telling you, the rest of the jury, and society, FUCK YOU! I WANT WHAT I WANT! Justice be damned.
You must really, really hate 12 Angry Men.

I was just about to cite that example. Everybody wants to see themselves as Juror #8 in that story, and the tragedy is that if there are holdouts on the jury for the sake of "punishing who really deserves it", they're actually probably more like Juror #3, determined to gain satisfaction for an unresolved grudge that has only the barest affiliation with the actual defendant.

I often find that the first step in understanding why anybody does what they do is to think, "Everybody sees themselves as the hero in their own story, which means they always see what they're setting themselves against as the villain." Figure out why someone would see that opposition as villainous, and you're halfway there.
My experience is that juries make decisions for emotional reasons, and almost completely ignore the evidence. While the lone hold outs may be holding out for irrational reasons, those are exactly the type of people who are more likely to be swayed by the soft pressure to conform.

Not really sure how any of this applies to the Rittenhouse case, because it's more likely they're making decisions based on whether they feel personally threatened. Which is rational, but orthogonal to the merits of the case.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 18, 2021, 09:02:13 PM
This judge is a moron who made a huge mistake in expecting that the jury would "be fine." Numerous potential jurors voiced their concerns about their safety to him during the jury selection process, and he blew them off. He's a relic of a bygone age when the Left had principles and wasn't just a raw expression of hatred for what is Just & Good.

Mob violence is the new rule, and his ineptitude and unwillingness to understand that threatens to destroy the life of Kyle Rittenhouse. No jurors should have been brought into the courtroom at all. They should all be sequestered in distinct undisclosed locations and presented testimony through telecommunications software. The identities of jurors should not be known to anyone, not even other jurors or court staff. This is the only way to have honest discussions in an age of widespread witch burnings.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 19, 2021, 12:20:54 AM
This judge is a moron who made a huge mistake in expecting that the jury would "be fine." Numerous potential jurors voiced their concerns about their safety to him during the jury selection process, and he blew them off. He's a relic of a bygone age when the Left had principles and wasn't just a raw expression of hatred for what is Just & Good.

Mob violence is the new rule, and his ineptitude and unwillingness to understand that threatens to destroy the life of Kyle Rittenhouse. No jurors should have been brought into the courtroom at all. They should all be sequestered in distinct undisclosed locations and presented testimony through telecommunications software. The identities of jurors should not be known to anyone, not even other jurors or court staff. This is the only way to have honest discussions in an age of widespread witch burnings.
Wouldn't having anonymous jurors only interacting through telecommunications have a high chance of bringing out the "internet fuckwads" in them?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 19, 2021, 07:27:35 AM
Either completely anonymize jurors, or savagely bring the hammer down on even a hint of juror intimidation.

Otherwise, get used to the mob being used to sway the jury.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 19, 2021, 09:28:12 AM
Either completely anonymize jurors, or savagely bring the hammer down on even a hint of juror intimidation.

Otherwise, get used to the mob being used to sway the jury.

This.  There is no reason why the authorities had to let protestors be on the courthouse steps.  Push them back a block.

But - there's part of the whole problem here - how do you distinguish legitimate protest from those who are there specifically to incite the mob?

People have the right to get on their soapbox, put on their tinfoil hat, and spout off in the public square.  The moment someone, however, starts to stalk the jurors or white threatening letters to the judge, you need to throw them a beating.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 19, 2021, 12:55:23 PM
The problem isn't necessarily the mob outside the courtroom, although the danger there is real. But every single juror is carrying in their pocket a device that connects their brain to the online mass-consciousness. But removing the cell phone from jurors is equivalent to taking a drug away from an addict -- How can you possibly expect these people to operate while going through withdrawal?

And if you don't, how can we expect unbiased independent judgment from people who are constantly connected to a barrage of online propaganda? (And is it even possible to obtain rational judgment from people who have consistently offloaded that responsibility to others, letting their own faculties wither if they were ever developed at all?) If you're a juror, you don't need to just worry about the mob being outside the courtroom; You need to worry about the mob being inside the deliberation room, taking note of what you say and then whispering to its violent enforcers to wreak hav-ok on your life if you oppose it.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 19, 2021, 01:15:47 PM
Not guilty on all charges!
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: rgalex on November 19, 2021, 01:30:11 PM
Not guilty on all charges!  Can't wait for all the riots that are going to go on this weekend.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: FingerRod on November 19, 2021, 01:30:52 PM
So happy to be wrong. Now the question becomes, who buys a private island first, Rittenhouse or Sandmann?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 19, 2021, 01:38:31 PM
Not guilty on all charges!  Can't wait for all the riots that are going to go on this weekend.
I hope the governor has enough National Guard ready this time to limit the rioting as much as possible. I hear there are about 500 on stand-by, but that doesn’t sound like enough given that last year it took 1500-2000 to restore order.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 19, 2021, 01:40:39 PM
As to the above?

Yep if I’m Rittenhouse I’m targeting every celebrity and news outlet that may have slandered him. Also if I was him I would not accept any settlements,
I’d take them to court and push for the maximum damages possible and wring every last penny out of them.

Next ADA Binger and his clown buddy should be brought before the BAR and sanctioned at minimum, if not disbarred. Attempting to violate Rittenhouse’s 5th amendment rights in front of the jury? After the judge told you no twice?

Hey Binger we can get you a copy of the Constitution and even read to you since you obviously can’t.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 19, 2021, 02:11:16 PM
Just in time for International Men’s Day!

Confirming your right to defend yourself!
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on November 19, 2021, 02:12:10 PM
Faith in people restored a bit.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Venka on November 19, 2021, 02:22:07 PM
I dunno if it's possible to turn the tide or anything, but I'm really relieved to see exactly one thing go right.  It's been years lol.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 19, 2021, 03:24:29 PM
Fantastic news!

Why Kyle Rittenhouse is Now a World-Historical Figure

The political landscape in the US, and in the West generally, is muddied with corruption striking at the heart of its members' ability to function as respective sovereign nation-states. The future is in grave doubt. People don't know who to trust. The people who know that civilization itself is imperiled have been voting in as a Trumpish direction as possible, but, without knowing firmly who are his allies in the cause.

Rittenhouse's acquittal changes the game: he sacrificed his anonymity and a good deal of peace of mind, for the sake of his community, and, in so doing, he has created a political acid test to determine who stands against anarcho-tyranny (https://westernman.org/anarcho-tyranny/) and who does not. Trump supported him (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-defends-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting_n_5f4d71aac5b64f17e1419ba5), so did Tucker Carlson, and Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona (https://www.revolver.news/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-not-guilty/), and who else? Versus who actively condemned him or tarred his name (https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-refuses-explain-why-biden-204338524.html).

He didn't make a plea deal, he "stuck to his guns" and although he paid a heavy emotional price for it, the fact of his honesty, good faith, and love for his fellow man, which shone through in his trial against vicious accusations of being a stone killer, has both, in this instance, saved him from an even heavier price, and shown the good people of America and the West a way to know which persons stand on the side of civilization and which are not.

Given that the West's fate as the capital ship of the human fleet will determine the fate of the world, that gives Rittenhouse's case's outcome world-historical importance, and makes him a hero both to American patriots and to clear-thinking world citizens. He earned it.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Kiero on November 19, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Next time you're taking out commie trash, Kyle, use a helicopter.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 19, 2021, 03:54:54 PM
Matt Gaetz has apparently offered Kyle an internship...likely in the hope that Kyle can bring around some girls of his age.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 19, 2021, 03:58:23 PM
Matt Gaetz has apparently offered Kyle an internship...likely in the hope that Kyle can bring around some girls of his age.

What's the matter, sweetie?  Verdict didn't go the way you're pwecious feewings wanted them to?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 19, 2021, 03:58:45 PM
Matt Gaetz has apparently offered Kyle an internship...likely in the hope that Kyle can bring around some girls of his age.

Kyle can not work in Congress.

There is not enough bullets in the world to shoot all the pedophiles.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on November 19, 2021, 04:05:43 PM
Man.....I still feel for Kyle. The mans life is fucked up. Just not in jail. He needs to sue those fuckers for every last penny.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 19, 2021, 04:36:14 PM
Matt Gaetz has apparently offered Kyle an internship...likely in the hope that Kyle can bring around some girls of his age.

What's the matter, sweetie?  Verdict didn't go the way you're pwecious feewings wanted them to?
I have no issue with the outcome or Kyle. I just wanted to take a fun swipe at Gaetz.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 19, 2021, 04:45:53 PM
Not guilty on all charges!

Greetings!

FUCKING YES! OOH RAH! ;D

Such outstanding news!

I hope that Kyle Rittenhouse lines up a crack team of lawyers and takes every Liberal cunt bureaucrat, politician, news agency, whoever, to court and sues them into oblivion for anything possible. Defamation, Slander, I imagine all kinds of things. Like Nick Sandman already advised Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle needs to GET FUCKING PAID! The Liberal machine has embraced so much fraud and lying throughout this trial against Kyle Rittenhouse, it has been disgusting. It is too bad that lots of these Liberal scum, like the Prosecutor, can't be shackled in chains and sent to prison. Those MSNBC reporters that were discovered attempting to dox the jurors--and thereby derail the and influence the trial against Kyle Rittenhouse--they too, should be taken away in chains.

It will be good to see money taken from sobbing Liberals. I hope they get broken and crushed ruthlessly.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 19, 2021, 04:54:29 PM
Matt Gaetz has apparently offered Kyle an internship...likely in the hope that Kyle can bring around some girls of his age.

What's the matter, sweetie?  Verdict didn't go the way you're pwecious feewings wanted them to?
I have no issue with the outcome or Kyle. I just wanted to take a fun swipe at Gaetz.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 19, 2021, 04:56:33 PM
Not guilty on all charges!

Greetings!

FUCKING YES! OOH RAH! ;D

Such outstanding news!

I hope that Kyle Rittenhouse lines up a crack team of lawyers and takes every Liberal cunt bureaucrat, politician, news agency, whoever, to court and sues them into oblivion for anything possible. Defamation, Slander, I imagine all kinds of things. Like Nick Sandman already advised Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle needs to GET FUCKING PAID! The Liberal machine has embraced so much fraud and lying throughout this trial against Kyle Rittenhouse, it has been disgusting. It is too bad that lots of these Liberal scum, like the Prosecutor, can't be shackled in chains and sent to prison. Those MSNBC reporters that were discovered attempting to dox the jurors--and thereby derail the and influence the trial against Kyle Rittenhouse--they too, should be taken away in chains.

It will be good to see money taken from sobbing Liberals. I hope they get broken and crushed ruthlessly.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think Binger (being a cunt, notwithstanding), probably was suffering from Nifong-itis.  Election's coming up - he ran for DA and lost last time, so he was hoping to add a feather.

If the impossible happens and Biden is sued, how many Hunter "modern art masterpieces" would cover the damages awarded to Kyle?

All joking aside, unfortunately Kyle will likely need actual armed protection for awhile - there will be someone who wants to fuck around and a 2nd case of self-defense isn't something anyone ever wants to go through.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Melan on November 19, 2021, 05:01:51 PM
Good going! Now it is time to bring the fight to the propagandists and pedophiles in the press who have dragged Kyle's name through the mud. Let us hope that, like Hulk Hogan and the Covington Kid, he cleans out those bastards... and even gets a few presidential dollars as a small consolation for the hell he had to go through.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 19, 2021, 05:25:23 PM
This has all sorts of fun implications.

First off, every retard news org who shot their mouth off is now having heartfelt discussions with their legal department. I would completely understand if Rittenhouse wanted to bury this and never see the inside of a courtroom again... but he should not let them get away with their slander.

Second, the unholy frankenstein of a mob that the left unleashed is now on notice: setting fires and attacking people can and will get you killed. I'm sure there are some true believers out there who won't be fazed, but I suspect a number of them are rethinking their life choices.

Third, it is an affirmation of self defense as a virtue. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself from a deranged manlet lunatic who had already stated earlier 'if I catch you I'm gonna kill you!'. There is nothing wrong with shooting some idiot trying to brain you with a skateboard. As Malcolm Reynolds put it, someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back.

I expected a hung jury. I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong on this.

And I hope Nicholas Sandmann is talking to Kyle Rittenhouse. I imagine they both have some common goals now.

(As one wag put it, they're deciding which one of them wins in the MSNBC lawsuit. Loser has to be president; winner gets to fire Joy Reid.)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 19, 2021, 05:31:04 PM
This has all sorts of fun implications.

First off, every retard news org who shot their mouth off is now having heartfelt discussions with their legal department. I would completely understand if Rittenhouse wanted to bury this and never see the inside of a courtroom again... but he should not let them get away with their slander.

Second, the unholy frankenstein of a mob that the left unleashed is now on notice: setting fires and attacking people can and will get you killed. I'm sure there are some true believers out there who won't be fazed, but I suspect a number of them are rethinking their life choices.

Third, it is an affirmation of self defense as a virtue. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself from a deranged manlet lunatic who had already stated earlier 'if I catch you I'm gonna kill you!'. There is nothing wrong with shooting some idiot trying to brain you with a skateboard. As Malcolm Reynolds put it, someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back.

I expected a hung jury. I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong on this.

And I hope Nicholas Sandmann is talking to Kyle Rittenhouse. I imagine they both have some common goals now.

(As one wag put it, they're deciding which one of them wins in the MSNBC lawsuit. Loser has to be president; winner gets to fire Joy Reid.)

Yep.  Every last person who slandered him needs to pay up.

I'll have a drink to celebrate this win.  Make it a Rittenhouse - a chaser followed by three shots...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: myleftnut on November 19, 2021, 05:48:55 PM
Not guilty on all charges!

Good.  The media really went too far with this one.  Extreme dishonesty about something any of us can see on video.  He was being chased with intent to do harm or kill.  One dude even fired a fucking gun.  Sure the kid was playing vigilante super hero and is clearly a moron but that doesn’t mean his life is forfeit when he’s being attacked. 
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jeff37923 on November 19, 2021, 06:01:12 PM
Matt Gaetz has apparently offered Kyle an internship...likely in the hope that Kyle can bring around some girls of his age.

What's the matter, sweetie?  Verdict didn't go the way you're pwecious feewings wanted them to?
I have no issue with the outcome or Kyle. I just wanted to take a fun swipe at Gaetz.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 19, 2021, 07:03:16 PM
Matt Gaetz has apparently offered Kyle an internship...likely in the hope that Kyle can bring around some girls of his age.

What's the matter, sweetie?  Verdict didn't go the way you're pwecious feewings wanted them to?
I have no issue with the outcome or Kyle. I just wanted to take a fun swipe at Gaetz.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

I would be inclined to give HappyDaze the benefit of the doubt on this one.

However it is interesting to see the type of people missing from the thread.  The Dog that is not barking for example.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Aglondir on November 19, 2021, 07:09:07 PM
Not guilty on all charges!

Good.  The media really went too far with this one.  Extreme dishonesty about something any of us can see on video.  He was being chased with intent to do harm or kill.  One dude even fired a fucking gun.  Sure the kid was playing vigilante super hero and is clearly a moron but that doesn’t mean his life is forfeit when he’s being attacked.

Why is he "clearly a moron?"
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: KingCheops on November 19, 2021, 07:48:04 PM
(As one wag put it, they're deciding which one of them wins in the MSNBC lawsuit. Loser has to be president; winner gets to fire Joy Reid.)

Bablyon Bee had my favorite:

https://babylonbee.com/news/rittenhouse-sandmann-agree-to-share-joint-custody-of-cnn (https://babylonbee.com/news/rittenhouse-sandmann-agree-to-share-joint-custody-of-cnn)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on November 19, 2021, 08:07:00 PM
Why is he "clearly a moron?"

I wouldn't say a moron, but what he did was dangerous and risky. But in general I think what he did was ethical.
We can't decry a public lack of ethics and then call people morons when they put their life on the line to do something good.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 19, 2021, 08:23:47 PM
Double post
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 19, 2021, 08:26:29 PM
So spent probably way to much time on Twitter which I never do and various left leaning sites on this and one take away is clear: those on the left, alot, but not all have no idea what this case was about, who was involved nor the charges.

There are places like Salon and CNN which are still I can only persume deliberately getting stuff wrong like:
"He crossed state lines" Its not illegal to cross from one state to another.
"He illegally crossed state lines with a rifle!" No he didn't.

Then there is the shift of "let focus on the families of these victims. Families sure I can see some sympathy here but these three (actually four) guys were not saints by any stretch. Does that mean they should have been killed outright for it? Not diving into that but to point out in each of the three cases:

Rosenbaum- chasing after Rittenhouse after he retreated multiple times. Out of anyone he is the one most directly responsible for all of this. Talk about should have never been there.

Huber- Assault with a skateboard? I dont think anyone would want to be on the receiving end of that to the head.

Jump kick guy- funny they couldn't figure out who he was until after it went to trial. One of the charges was actually against Rittenhouse was from him from what I've read! Dude got lucky too, Rittenhouse almost got him with two shots.

Gauge G- this guy, you have to be kidding me. Only illegal gun that night was his and points his gun at Rittenhouse? Lucky to get away with just part of his arm blown off. Funny, is he being brought up on any criminal charges related to this? I think we know the answer to that.

In the end their is no winners in this IMO, Civil trials? I don't think they can get much from Rittenhouse until after he sues the media into oblivion. Federal charges? Nadler is a disgrace, I don't see how they can get civil rights violations out of this.

And this is to say nothing about the massive amount of civil rights violations the Prosecution engaged in.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 19, 2021, 08:47:05 PM
John Farnam once said: 'Avoid stupid people. Avoid stupid places. Avoid stupid people doing stupid things.'

I would give Rittenhouse one hell of a chewing out for violating that.

But that doesn't qualify for criminal charges. And it doesn't require him to let a mob tear him apart either.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: myleftnut on November 19, 2021, 08:59:00 PM
Not guilty on all charges!

Good.  The media really went too far with this one.  Extreme dishonesty about something any of us can see on video.  He was being chased with intent to do harm or kill.  One dude even fired a fucking gun.  Sure the kid was playing vigilante super hero and is clearly a moron but that doesn’t mean his life is forfeit when he’s being attacked.

Why is he "clearly a moron?"

Someone with a firearm should consider the possibility they may need to use it.  I think his actions ultimately are just but he’s too young to be playing Punisher. 
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 19, 2021, 09:08:00 PM
John Farnam once said: 'Avoid stupid people. Avoid stupid places. Avoid stupid people doing stupid things.'

I would give Rittenhouse one hell of a chewing out for violating that.

But that doesn't qualify for criminal charges. And it doesn't require him to let a mob tear him apart either.
I agree with this with a caveat. When a mob shows up in your neighborhood to riot you weren’t given the choice of location. If mob showed up in my neighborhood my neighbors and I would arm up and be prepared to defend ourselves. Most people who live in cities and states without crazy gun control laws would.

I wouldn’t go across town to meet up with a bunch of people I may not know very well, with whom there hasn’t been any practice of group tactics and maneuver, and where I didn’t know the terrain very well to where I would have to use Google to find locations. I think part of the reason why Rittenhouse was attacked (in conjunction with his attackers being stupid asses) was that he was separated from the rest of his group. Predators in nature go after the prey that gets separated from the herd.

None of what I said above justifies the mob coming after him. Rittenhouse lawfully defended himself, but it could have gone very wrong for him. He could have been killed. He could have received a verdict that sent him away for the rest of his life. The jury decided correctly, but every jury decision is a roll of the dice, and that can always come up snake eyes.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: FelixGamingX1 on November 19, 2021, 09:10:19 PM
Good for him all charges were acquitted. It's only fair. Hopefully he can overcome the trauma and live the rest of his life in peace.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 19, 2021, 09:29:08 PM
John Farnam once said: 'Avoid stupid people. Avoid stupid places. Avoid stupid people doing stupid things.'

I would give Rittenhouse one hell of a chewing out for violating that.

But that doesn't qualify for criminal charges. And it doesn't require him to let a mob tear him apart either.
I agree with this with a caveat. When a mob shows up in your neighborhood to riot you weren’t given the choice of location. If mob showed up in my neighborhood my neighbors and I would arm up and be prepared to defend ourselves. Most people who live in cities and states without crazy gun control laws would.

I wouldn’t go across town to meet up with a bunch of people I may not know very well, with whom there hasn’t been any practice of group tactics and maneuver, and where I didn’t know the terrain very well to where I would have to use Google to find locations. I think part of the reason why Rittenhouse was attacked (in conjunction with his attackers being stupid asses) was that he was separated from the rest of his group. Predators in nature go after the prey that gets separated from the herd.

None of what I said above justifies the mob coming after him. Rittenhouse lawfully defended himself, but it could have gone very wrong for him. He could have been killed. He could have received a verdict that sent him away for the rest of his life. The jury decided correctly, but every jury decision is a roll of the dice, and that can always come up snake eyes.

The left continues to howl that they would be alive if he hasn't been there that night with a rifle.  Yes - this is true. And irrelevant.  What they ought to be saying is that they would be alive if they hadn't shown up to riot and try to kill a 17 year old for trying to put out the fires they set. They would still be alive if the Dem  mayor hadn't forced the police to abandon the streets to the mob. They would still be alive if the Dem governor had brought in guardsmen after three days of riots

The other thing that no one on the left is willing to acknowledge: legitimate protests had shut down earlier in the day - "protestors" out there that late were up to no good.

In the likely upcoming riots, the police and national guard *have* to apply a zero tolerance approach.  Try to set a fire, break a window, or assault people and you'll be shot.  Protest turns violent and they order the crowd to disperse and they don't and they'll receive plenty of taserings, tear gas, and wooden shampoo.

We *know* that organized protestors on both sides who show up actually bearing firearms are likely to be peaceful.  It's the disaffected 30 year old purple-haired with questionable sexuality intersectional studies student turds and their Marxist professors that are the problem.  Pretty much anyone with made-up pronouns in their social media profile is going to be a problem.  These are people who are unable to think other than emotionally whose rioting is a grown-up-child tantrum. 
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 19, 2021, 09:59:01 PM
John Farnam once said: 'Avoid stupid people. Avoid stupid places. Avoid stupid people doing stupid things.'

I would give Rittenhouse one hell of a chewing out for violating that.

But that doesn't qualify for criminal charges. And it doesn't require him to let a mob tear him apart either.
I agree with this with a caveat. When a mob shows up in your neighborhood to riot you weren’t given the choice of location. If mob showed up in my neighborhood my neighbors and I would arm up and be prepared to defend ourselves. Most people who live in cities and states without crazy gun control laws would.

I wouldn’t go across town to meet up with a bunch of people I may not know very well, with whom there hasn’t been any practice of group tactics and maneuver, and where I didn’t know the terrain very well to where I would have to use Google to find locations. I think part of the reason why Rittenhouse was attacked (in conjunction with his attackers being stupid asses) was that he was separated from the rest of his group. Predators in nature go after the prey that gets separated from the herd.

None of what I said above justifies the mob coming after him. Rittenhouse lawfully defended himself, but it could have gone very wrong for him. He could have been killed. He could have received a verdict that sent him away for the rest of his life. The jury decided correctly, but every jury decision is a roll of the dice, and that can always come up snake eyes.

The left continues to howl that they would be alive if he hasn't been there that night with a rifle.  Yes - this is true. And irrelevant.  What they ought to be saying is that they would be alive if they hadn't shown up to riot and try to kill a 17 year old for trying to put out the fires they set. They would still be alive if the Dem  mayor hadn't forced the police to abandon the streets to the mob. They would still be alive if the Dem governor had brought in guardsmen after three days of riots

The other thing that no one on the left is willing to acknowledge: legitimate protests had shut down earlier in the day - "protestors" out there that late were up to no good.

In the likely upcoming riots, the police and national guard *have* to apply a zero tolerance approach.  Try to set a fire, break a window, or assault people and you'll be shot.  Protest turns violent and they order the crowd to disperse and they don't and they'll receive plenty of taserings, tear gas, and wooden shampoo.

We *know* that organized protestors on both sides who show up actually bearing firearms are likely to be peaceful.  It's the disaffected 30 year old purple-haired with questionable sexuality intersectional studies student turds and their Marxist professors that are the problem.  Pretty much anyone with made-up pronouns in their social media profile is going to be a problem.  These are people who are unable to think other than emotionally whose rioting is a grown-up-child tantrum.
Let's test your theory. Remind us all again,, what were the preferred pronouns of the three people Kyle shot?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 19, 2021, 10:11:09 PM
Greetings!

Pure Misinformation, Lies, and Liberal Stupidity.

Short video, enjoy! My god, the absolute stupidity, deception, and misinformation, racism, and hate-mongering by these fucking Liberal idiots is mind boggling!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joy-reid-on-rittenhouse-verdict-this-is-what-we-expected-to-happen/vi-AAQVhZJ?ocid=msedgntp

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 19, 2021, 10:23:59 PM
John Farnam once said: 'Avoid stupid people. Avoid stupid places. Avoid stupid people doing stupid things.'

I would give Rittenhouse one hell of a chewing out for violating that.

But that doesn't qualify for criminal charges. And it doesn't require him to let a mob tear him apart either.
I agree with this with a caveat. When a mob shows up in your neighborhood to riot you weren’t given the choice of location. If mob showed up in my neighborhood my neighbors and I would arm up and be prepared to defend ourselves. Most people who live in cities and states without crazy gun control laws would.

I wouldn’t go across town to meet up with a bunch of people I may not know very well, with whom there hasn’t been any practice of group tactics and maneuver, and where I didn’t know the terrain very well to where I would have to use Google to find locations. I think part of the reason why Rittenhouse was attacked (in conjunction with his attackers being stupid asses) was that he was separated from the rest of his group. Predators in nature go after the prey that gets separated from the herd.

None of what I said above justifies the mob coming after him. Rittenhouse lawfully defended himself, but it could have gone very wrong for him. He could have been killed. He could have received a verdict that sent him away for the rest of his life. The jury decided correctly, but every jury decision is a roll of the dice, and that can always come up snake eyes.

The left continues to howl that they would be alive if he hasn't been there that night with a rifle.  Yes - this is true. And irrelevant.  What they ought to be saying is that they would be alive if they hadn't shown up to riot and try to kill a 17 year old for trying to put out the fires they set. They would still be alive if the Dem  mayor hadn't forced the police to abandon the streets to the mob. They would still be alive if the Dem governor had brought in guardsmen after three days of riots

The other thing that no one on the left is willing to acknowledge: legitimate protests had shut down earlier in the day - "protestors" out there that late were up to no good.

In the likely upcoming riots, the police and national guard *have* to apply a zero tolerance approach.  Try to set a fire, break a window, or assault people and you'll be shot.  Protest turns violent and they order the crowd to disperse and they don't and they'll receive plenty of taserings, tear gas, and wooden shampoo.

We *know* that organized protestors on both sides who show up actually bearing firearms are likely to be peaceful.  It's the disaffected 30 year old purple-haired with questionable sexuality intersectional studies student turds and their Marxist professors that are the problem.  Pretty much anyone with made-up pronouns in their social media profile is going to be a problem.  These are people who are unable to think other than emotionally whose rioting is a grown-up-child tantrum.
Let's test your theory. Remind us all again,, what were the preferred pronouns of the three people Kyle shot?

Doesn't matter now - two are taking permanent dirt naps and the third isn't going to be rioting any time soon.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 19, 2021, 11:54:37 PM
John Farnam once said: 'Avoid stupid people. Avoid stupid places. Avoid stupid people doing stupid things.'

I would give Rittenhouse one hell of a chewing out for violating that.

But that doesn't qualify for criminal charges. And it doesn't require him to let a mob tear him apart either.
I agree with this with a caveat. When a mob shows up in your neighborhood to riot you weren’t given the choice of location. If mob showed up in my neighborhood my neighbors and I would arm up and be prepared to defend ourselves. Most people who live in cities and states without crazy gun control laws would.

I wouldn’t go across town to meet up with a bunch of people I may not know very well, with whom there hasn’t been any practice of group tactics and maneuver, and where I didn’t know the terrain very well to where I would have to use Google to find locations. I think part of the reason why Rittenhouse was attacked (in conjunction with his attackers being stupid asses) was that he was separated from the rest of his group. Predators in nature go after the prey that gets separated from the herd.

None of what I said above justifies the mob coming after him. Rittenhouse lawfully defended himself, but it could have gone very wrong for him. He could have been killed. He could have received a verdict that sent him away for the rest of his life. The jury decided correctly, but every jury decision is a roll of the dice, and that can always come up snake eyes.

The left continues to howl that they would be alive if he hasn't been there that night with a rifle.  Yes - this is true. And irrelevant.  What they ought to be saying is that they would be alive if they hadn't shown up to riot and try to kill a 17 year old for trying to put out the fires they set. They would still be alive if the Dem  mayor hadn't forced the police to abandon the streets to the mob. They would still be alive if the Dem governor had brought in guardsmen after three days of riots

The other thing that no one on the left is willing to acknowledge: legitimate protests had shut down earlier in the day - "protestors" out there that late were up to no good.

In the likely upcoming riots, the police and national guard *have* to apply a zero tolerance approach.  Try to set a fire, break a window, or assault people and you'll be shot.  Protest turns violent and they order the crowd to disperse and they don't and they'll receive plenty of taserings, tear gas, and wooden shampoo.

We *know* that organized protestors on both sides who show up actually bearing firearms are likely to be peaceful.  It's the disaffected 30 year old purple-haired with questionable sexuality intersectional studies student turds and their Marxist professors that are the problem.  Pretty much anyone with made-up pronouns in their social media profile is going to be a problem.  These are people who are unable to think other than emotionally whose rioting is a grown-up-child tantrum.
Let's test your theory. Remind us all again,, what were the preferred pronouns of the three people Kyle shot?

Doesn't matter now - two are taking permanent dirt naps and the third isn't going to be rioting any time soon.
You're said that "Pretty much anyone with made-up pronouns in their social media profile is going to be a problem." I'm just asking if you have any evidence that these are likely to be the ones initiating violence (real violence here, not the "words are violence" stuff). I believe you're wrong here and are just throwing two different groups you dislike/oppose into the same category, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: DM_Curt on November 20, 2021, 01:27:50 AM
Riots in Brooklyn, NY and Portland, OR.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: myleftnut on November 20, 2021, 01:29:46 AM
Why is he "clearly a moron?"

I wouldn't say a moron, but what he did was dangerous and risky. But in general I think what he did was ethical.
We can't decry a public lack of ethics and then call people morons when they put their life on the line to do something good.

I realize I’m being too harsh on the kid but what he did was incredibly stupid. He could be dead right now.  This wasn’t his town/neighborhood.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the one person who had to resort to deadly force was a 16 year old.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: myleftnut on November 20, 2021, 01:32:36 AM
Riots in Brooklyn, NY and Portland, OR.

Expected.  I definitely was armed when I went out to the store.  I’m seeing funny stuff going on away from the rioting too.  I predict some 7-11’s will be robbed tonight while the police are “distracted”. 
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: DM_Curt on November 20, 2021, 01:33:45 AM
Glad I'm on day shift nowadays.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: moonsweeper on November 20, 2021, 04:00:55 AM
Riots in Brooklyn, NY and Portland, OR.

I noticed there isn't any rioting in Kenosha, though...

...not sure why that is.   ;)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 20, 2021, 04:42:51 AM
NPR was more balanced than I expected, which isn't saying a lot. They mentioned the riots were initiated by an incident involving a black man, but explicitly pointed out that all the 3 people Rittenhouse shot were white. And they had a short man on the street statement from someone who supported Rittenhouse's acquittal. But that's as far as it went. They had twice as many people who called the acquittal a mockery of justice, called the three people shot "victims", repeatedly said Rittenhouse "murdered" two people, said the riots with burning dumpsters being pushed toward gas stations were "racial justice protests", and never discussed the legal merits of the case or its open and shut nature. And then they shifted the discussion to talk about the families of the "victims", though only Avril Huber's family had made a statement, so most of it was "imagine what they're going through" nonsense.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 20, 2021, 04:44:18 AM
Man.....I still feel for Kyle. The mans life is fucked up. Just not in jail. He needs to sue those fuckers for every last penny.
Nah, he's a celebrity now. He can probably charge as much as the Clintons for speaking fees.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: S'mon on November 20, 2021, 04:56:44 AM
AFAICT usually in these sorts of cases in the USA the judge is a political appointee who sides with the prosecution, as in most Civil Law countries (except in Civil Law nations the judges are bureaucrats, in the USA they seem more like politicians). But I guess this varies according to State. It was interesting seeing an actual independent judge, not a tool of the State. Will there be pressure to ensure this does not happen again?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 20, 2021, 06:37:20 AM
AFAICT usually in these sorts of cases in the USA the judge is a political appointee who sides with the prosecution, as in most Civil Law countries (except in Civil Law nations the judges are bureaucrats, in the USA they seem more like politicians). But I guess this varies according to State. It was interesting seeing an actual independent judge, not a tool of the State. Will there be pressure to ensure this does not happen again?
Federal judges are appointed, but at the state level it’s a highly varied mish-mash of elections for some, appointments in others, and sometimes a hybrid approach some sort such as initial appointments followed by retention elections. The judge in Kenosha was elected.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/judicial-selection-significant-figures
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 20, 2021, 07:46:40 AM
Why is he "clearly a moron?"

I wouldn't say a moron, but what he did was dangerous and risky. But in general I think what he did was ethical.
We can't decry a public lack of ethics and then call people morons when they put their life on the line to do something good.

I realize I’m being too harsh on the kid but what he did was incredibly stupid. He could be dead right now.  This wasn’t his town/neighborhood.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the one person who had to resort to deadly force was a 16 year old.
Strictly speaking, it was. He worked in Kenosha. His dad (separated from his mom) lived in Kenosha. Gaige Grosskreutz, aka the one-armed man, drove a further distance to get there than Rittenhouse did.

Now, I still think he should've exercised a little more common sense in going out there... but y'know, hindsight is 20/20.

There's a lot more blame that could be placed than on just Rittenhouse. Blame the media, BLM, and Antifa for whipping up a storm over Jacob Blake. Blame Governor Evers for not deploying the NG and stating 'If you are seen setting fires, they will shoot you'. Blame the idiot rioters who didn't zip-tie Rosenbaum to a lamppost when they realized he was batshit fucking crazy (yeah, they knew).
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 20, 2021, 08:47:08 AM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 20, 2021, 09:35:34 AM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6
From what I read it looks like one can have a Go Fund Me after an acquittal, even Rittenhouse. Sounds to me like Go Fund Me is thinking there’s a significant amount of money they’re missing out on. Go Fund Me has always struck me as sketchy no matter who or what is getting funded.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: moonsweeper on November 20, 2021, 10:31:13 AM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6

From what I read it looks like one can have a Go Fund Me after an acquittal, even Rittenhouse. Sounds to me like Go Fund Me is thinking there’s a significant amount of money they’re missing out on. Go Fund Me has always struck me as sketchy no matter who or what is getting funded.

I actually think Gofundme is trying to avoid the lawsuit storm...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 20, 2021, 01:17:07 PM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6

From what I read it looks like one can have a Go Fund Me after an acquittal, even Rittenhouse. Sounds to me like Go Fund Me is thinking there’s a significant amount of money they’re missing out on. Go Fund Me has always struck me as sketchy no matter who or what is getting funded.

I actually think Gofundme is trying to avoid the lawsuit storm...

This.  Doesn't matter though that they're pretending they're good people now.  At the time, they slandered him just as bad as everyone else.  I'd argue that it is even worse for them than the some rando twitter shill because money is involved.  Unless it involves actual illegal activity on their part, *all* of these "donate" platforms should be required to allow anyone to use their platform.  The users will decide whether or not something is worth donating to.  More importantly, why would you ever trust a platform that caves to the whims of angry Twitter rando mental patients?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 20, 2021, 02:14:21 PM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6

From what I read it looks like one can have a Go Fund Me after an acquittal, even Rittenhouse. Sounds to me like Go Fund Me is thinking there’s a significant amount of money they’re missing out on. Go Fund Me has always struck me as sketchy no matter who or what is getting funded.

I actually think Gofundme is trying to avoid the lawsuit storm...

This.  Doesn't matter though that they're pretending they're good people now.  At the time, they slandered him just as bad as everyone else.  I'd argue that it is even worse for them than the some rando twitter shill because money is involved.  Unless it involves actual illegal activity on their part, *all* of these "donate" platforms should be required to allow anyone to use their platform.  The users will decide whether or not something is worth donating to.  More importantly, why would you ever trust a platform that caves to the whims of angry Twitter rando mental patients?
The platforms are private businesses. Aren't private businesses allowed to deny services to would-be customers for many reasons, so long as it's not along certain discriminatory lines?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on November 20, 2021, 02:19:27 PM
The platforms are private businesses. Aren't private businesses allowed to deny services to would-be customers for many reasons, so long as it's not along certain discriminatory lines?

I very much agree with this for once.
I think its shitty, and unethical, but you should be allowed to descriminate on any grounds you desire (even racist/sexist ones).
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 20, 2021, 02:50:32 PM
Victory is sweet.

But do not forget, Justice has not been served. Malicious prosecutors T. Clair Binger and James Kraus are still roaming free. These scumbags used the authority of the state to bring a malicious prosecution against an innocent man, and in the process suborned perjury, manipulated & concealed evidence, and otherwise behaved in an unethical fashion for reasons that almost certainly have to do with personal & professional enrichment. Binger himself has an inappropriate relationship with a judge in Wisconsin, both of them need to be removed from any kind of public office. But don't be surprised when you see this smug, lying face on CNN as a legal analyst.

Terrorists will crawl out from the cracks and torch more communities. The media that summoned them by chanting lies, over and over again, are still unpunished for their role in inciting violence.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 20, 2021, 03:16:39 PM
Greetings!

LET JUSTICE RING OUT!

Sweet, sweet victory, indeed! The fundamental right to self defense is again, affirmed.

It is also revealed with even more clarity how full our nation is with evil, racist, hate-filled Marxist tyrants that want to destroy our Republic, and make every man a slave.

Especially WHITE MEN. Especially CONSERVATIVES.

The absolute naked racism, hatred, and disgusting corruption that has been revealed in the cock-sucking Marxist prosecutors efforts during this trial is so damning.

ALL AMERICA CAN SEE! Everyone can see exactly what the fucking Liberal Marxists would do to YOU if they had the opportunity.

Oh yeah. Lots and lots of trees need to be decorated good.

All of these fucking Liberal Marxist scum will fuck around and find out that we will not go quietly into the night!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 20, 2021, 05:43:52 PM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6

From what I read it looks like one can have a Go Fund Me after an acquittal, even Rittenhouse. Sounds to me like Go Fund Me is thinking there’s a significant amount of money they’re missing out on. Go Fund Me has always struck me as sketchy no matter who or what is getting funded.

I actually think Gofundme is trying to avoid the lawsuit storm...

This.  Doesn't matter though that they're pretending they're good people now.  At the time, they slandered him just as bad as everyone else.  I'd argue that it is even worse for them than the some rando twitter shill because money is involved.  Unless it involves actual illegal activity on their part, *all* of these "donate" platforms should be required to allow anyone to use their platform.  The users will decide whether or not something is worth donating to.  More importantly, why would you ever trust a platform that caves to the whims of angry Twitter rando mental patients?
The platforms are private businesses. Aren't private businesses allowed to deny services to would-be customers for many reasons, so long as it's not along certain discriminatory lines?

Whose decision is it as to what is discriminatory and what isn't?  Go fund me are the same shitbags who've allowed antifa terrorists caught in the act of throwing Molotov cocktails at people to have fundraisers for their legal defense, yet they refused to allow the same for Kyle.  You can't apply this double standard and retain any credibility.

I'd be happy to platform a conservative competitor in the hopes off putting them out if business, but we all know go fund me will stay in business because there are so many more leftists who are engaged in criminal activity than there are conservatives.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: DocJones on November 20, 2021, 06:06:36 PM
NPR was more balanced than I expected, which isn't saying a lot. They mentioned the riots were initiated by the death of a black man...
Did they actually suggest that Jacob Blake died?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 20, 2021, 06:34:20 PM
NPR was more balanced than I expected, which isn't saying a lot. They mentioned the riots were initiated by the death of a black man...
Did they actually suggest that Jacob Blake died?

Greetings!

I don't know about NPR, but I have heard video clips of CNN and MSNBC saying that Jacob Blake was killed by the police.

Outright fucking LYING. All of the fucking Liberal cunt Marxists are such lying scum. Geesus, we need to clean fucking house with these filthy, lying, corrupt rats. That is all they do is chew, and lie, and scheme, and work to destroy America.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Kiero on November 20, 2021, 06:44:50 PM
Think you'd get a permaban if you posted this on The Purple Shithole:
(https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gab.com%2Fsystem%2Fmedia_attachments%2Ffiles%2F091%2F038%2F531%2Foriginal%2F2ef814cd9d48df4f.jpg&key=CbQwtNeL_jriO-55qstx0w&w=600&h=679)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 20, 2021, 06:52:06 PM
The platforms are private businesses.
Pull the other leg.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 20, 2021, 06:52:39 PM
NPR was more balanced than I expected, which isn't saying a lot. They mentioned the riots were initiated by the death of a black man...
Did they actually suggest that Jacob Blake died?
My error, not theirs.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 20, 2021, 07:07:27 PM
Think you'd get a permaban if you posted this on The Purple Shithole:
(https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gab.com%2Fsystem%2Fmedia_attachments%2Ffiles%2F091%2F038%2F531%2Foriginal%2F2ef814cd9d48df4f.jpg&key=CbQwtNeL_jriO-55qstx0w&w=600&h=679)
Sure. You’d be banned for rubbing it in their faces. From their perspective it’d be an easy call, and would provide them with an easy avenue to feel righteous. Don’t give the mods an easy endorphin hit. Better for them to try to spend their time coming up with a rule to ban anything supportive of the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial if that’s what they want, but I also think they want to have such a rule not be so blunt and obvious.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Kiero on November 20, 2021, 07:09:30 PM
Sure. You’d be banned for rubbing it in their faces. From their perspective it’d be an easy call, and would provide them with an easy avenue to feel righteous. Don’t give the mods an easy endorphin hit. Better for them to try to spend their time coming up with a rule to ban anything supportive of the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial if that’s what they want, but I also think they want to have such a rule not be so blunt and obvious.

I haven't posted there in close to a decade, it might even be worth it to go out in style.  ;D

Or maybe this:
(https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.4cdn.org%2Fpol%2F1637447208446.jpg&key=wMRX1_mMDOBPGL_1PJ5htQ&w=600&h=1316)

Or this:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEor5HQWUAUED9y?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 20, 2021, 07:18:58 PM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6

From what I read it looks like one can have a Go Fund Me after an acquittal, even Rittenhouse. Sounds to me like Go Fund Me is thinking there’s a significant amount of money they’re missing out on. Go Fund Me has always struck me as sketchy no matter who or what is getting funded.

I actually think Gofundme is trying to avoid the lawsuit storm...

This.  Doesn't matter though that they're pretending they're good people now.  At the time, they slandered him just as bad as everyone else.  I'd argue that it is even worse for them than the some rando twitter shill because money is involved.  Unless it involves actual illegal activity on their part, *all* of these "donate" platforms should be required to allow anyone to use their platform.  The users will decide whether or not something is worth donating to.  More importantly, why would you ever trust a platform that caves to the whims of angry Twitter rando mental patients?
The platforms are private businesses. Aren't private businesses allowed to deny services to would-be customers for many reasons, so long as it's not along certain discriminatory lines?

Whose decision is it as to what is discriminatory and what isn't?  Go fund me are the same shitbags who've allowed antifa terrorists caught in the act of throwing Molotov cocktails at people to have fundraisers for their legal defense, yet they refused to allow the same for Kyle.  You can't apply this double standard and retain any credibility.

I'd be happy to platform a conservative competitor in the hopes off putting them out if business, but we all know go fund me will stay in business because there are so many more leftists who are engaged in criminal activity than there are conservatives.
The law determines what is discrimination and what is not. If you don't like it, laws can change, but they may also change in directions you don't like.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: KingCheops on November 20, 2021, 08:14:12 PM
I'd be happy to platform a conservative competitor in the hopes off putting them out if business, but we all know go fund me will stay in business because there are so many more leftists who are engaged in criminal activity than there are conservatives.

https://www.givesendgo.com/ (https://www.givesendgo.com/)

I highly recommend Gab for finding parallel economy goods and services.  And actually just for a social media app in general.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 20, 2021, 08:18:20 PM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6

From what I read it looks like one can have a Go Fund Me after an acquittal, even Rittenhouse. Sounds to me like Go Fund Me is thinking there’s a significant amount of money they’re missing out on. Go Fund Me has always struck me as sketchy no matter who or what is getting funded.

I actually think Gofundme is trying to avoid the lawsuit storm...

This.  Doesn't matter though that they're pretending they're good people now.  At the time, they slandered him just as bad as everyone else.  I'd argue that it is even worse for them than the some rando twitter shill because money is involved.  Unless it involves actual illegal activity on their part, *all* of these "donate" platforms should be required to allow anyone to use their platform.  The users will decide whether or not something is worth donating to.  More importantly, why would you ever trust a platform that caves to the whims of angry Twitter rando mental patients?
The platforms are private businesses. Aren't private businesses allowed to deny services to would-be customers for many reasons, so long as it's not along certain discriminatory lines?

Whose decision is it as to what is discriminatory and what isn't?  Go fund me are the same shitbags who've allowed antifa terrorists caught in the act of throwing Molotov cocktails at people to have fundraisers for their legal defense, yet they refused to allow the same for Kyle.  You can't apply this double standard and retain any credibility.

I'd be happy to platform a conservative competitor in the hopes off putting them out if business, but we all know go fund me will stay in business because there are so many more leftists who are engaged in criminal activity than there are conservatives.
The law determines what is discrimination and what is not. If you don't like it, laws can change, but they may also change in directions you don't like.

And isn't that the point?  Those who sued a baker for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding are the same lot who cheered GoFundMe for removing Rittenhouse's fundraiser.  If a baker can be sued for exercising their 1st amendment rights, then GoFundMe can be sued for violating Rittenhouse's 1st and 5th amendment rights.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 20, 2021, 08:23:43 PM
Not guilty on all charges!

Good.  The media really went too far with this one.  Extreme dishonesty about something any of us can see on video.  He was being chased with intent to do harm or kill.  One dude even fired a fucking gun.  Sure the kid was playing vigilante super hero and is clearly a moron but that doesn’t mean his life is forfeit when he’s being attacked.

Why is he "clearly a moron?"

Someone with a firearm should consider the possibility they may need to use it.  I think his actions ultimately are just but he’s too young to be playing Punisher.

He was clearly excellently trained. He held back from firing until he had absolutely no other choice (other than the one the Left wanted him to make: just let the Antifa terrorists murder him), and yet even then he made three perfect shots.  There's SAS guys who would envy that.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 20, 2021, 08:27:35 PM
John Farnam once said: 'Avoid stupid people. Avoid stupid places. Avoid stupid people doing stupid things.'

I would give Rittenhouse one hell of a chewing out for violating that.

But that doesn't qualify for criminal charges. And it doesn't require him to let a mob tear him apart either.
I agree with this with a caveat. When a mob shows up in your neighborhood to riot you weren’t given the choice of location. If mob showed up in my neighborhood my neighbors and I would arm up and be prepared to defend ourselves. Most people who live in cities and states without crazy gun control laws would.

I wouldn’t go across town to meet up with a bunch of people I may not know very well, with whom there hasn’t been any practice of group tactics and maneuver, and where I didn’t know the terrain very well to where I would have to use Google to find locations. I think part of the reason why Rittenhouse was attacked (in conjunction with his attackers being stupid asses) was that he was separated from the rest of his group. Predators in nature go after the prey that gets separated from the herd.

None of what I said above justifies the mob coming after him. Rittenhouse lawfully defended himself, but it could have gone very wrong for him. He could have been killed. He could have received a verdict that sent him away for the rest of his life. The jury decided correctly, but every jury decision is a roll of the dice, and that can always come up snake eyes.

The left continues to howl that they would be alive if he hasn't been there that night with a rifle.  Yes - this is true. And irrelevant.  What they ought to be saying is that they would be alive if they hadn't shown up to riot and try to kill a 17 year old for trying to put out the fires they set. They would still be alive if the Dem  mayor hadn't forced the police to abandon the streets to the mob. They would still be alive if the Dem governor had brought in guardsmen after three days of riots

The other thing that no one on the left is willing to acknowledge: legitimate protests had shut down earlier in the day - "protestors" out there that late were up to no good.

In the likely upcoming riots, the police and national guard *have* to apply a zero tolerance approach.  Try to set a fire, break a window, or assault people and you'll be shot.  Protest turns violent and they order the crowd to disperse and they don't and they'll receive plenty of taserings, tear gas, and wooden shampoo.

We *know* that organized protestors on both sides who show up actually bearing firearms are likely to be peaceful.  It's the disaffected 30 year old purple-haired with questionable sexuality intersectional studies student turds and their Marxist professors that are the problem.  Pretty much anyone with made-up pronouns in their social media profile is going to be a problem.  These are people who are unable to think other than emotionally whose rioting is a grown-up-child tantrum.
Let's test your theory. Remind us all again,, what were the preferred pronouns of the three people Kyle shot?

Doesn't matter now - two are taking permanent dirt naps and the third isn't going to be rioting any time soon.

And yet is not facing any charges for his crime.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 20, 2021, 08:28:32 PM
Riots in Brooklyn, NY and Portland, OR.

And yet not in Kenosha. Looks like someone is afraid that now there'll be 1000 Kyles waiting for them.

That's what we need everywhere.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 20, 2021, 08:29:27 PM
Why is he "clearly a moron?"

I wouldn't say a moron, but what he did was dangerous and risky. But in general I think what he did was ethical.
We can't decry a public lack of ethics and then call people morons when they put their life on the line to do something good.

I realize I’m being too harsh on the kid but what he did was incredibly stupid. He could be dead right now.  This wasn’t his town/neighborhood.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the one person who had to resort to deadly force was a 16 year old.


He was literally trying to protect his grandpa's business, in the town where his dad lives, a ten-minute drive from where he lives most of the time.

But hey, in one sense you're right. Kyle wouldn't have NEEDED to be there if the GOVERNMENT had done its job, sent in huge numbers of police to STOP THE RIOT and ARREST AND CHARGE all the antifa terrorists.
But they didn't do that, they just gave them carte blanche to loot, vandalize, rape, kill and burn the city to the ground.

Even so, we wouldn't have needed a 16 year old kid there to stand up to them, if there were ADULT MEN in Kenosha who would have taken up arms and stopped these fucking terrorists in their tracks.

So OK, the hero had to be a 16 year old kid. David had to do it because all the rest of the tribe were too scared to take on Goliath. That's how you end up becoming the king.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 20, 2021, 08:32:14 PM
The Chair of the House Judiciary committee calls for the continuation of the witch hunt: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."
https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Go Fund Me has clarified that they wouldn't let Rittenhouse raise money for his legal defense when he needed it, but now that the trial is over it's okay:
https://medium.com/gofundme-stories/gofundme-policy-on-fundraisers-for-the-legal-defense-of-violent-crimes-975aff8ba5f6

From what I read it looks like one can have a Go Fund Me after an acquittal, even Rittenhouse. Sounds to me like Go Fund Me is thinking there’s a significant amount of money they’re missing out on. Go Fund Me has always struck me as sketchy no matter who or what is getting funded.

I actually think Gofundme is trying to avoid the lawsuit storm...


They claimed "we don't let people raise funds for people charged with crimes". All Kyle needs to do is show all of the huge number of gofundme campaigns done for Antifa Terrorist Bail Funds to prove that's a lie.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 20, 2021, 08:45:53 PM
Greetings!

*Laughing* So pathetic. Liberals really do have jello for brains. Their entire minds are filled with cat food. I read an article from the Liberal Guardian, that headlined "Rittenhouse wasn't convicted because in America, white reasoning rules".

And these fucking morons like to believe that they sit up on high, in some intellectual tower.

Dogs have more common sense than Liberals, like all the morons that work at the Guardian newspaper.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 20, 2021, 08:52:35 PM
Greetings!

*Laughing* So pathetic. Liberals really do have jello for brains. Their entire minds are filled with cat food. I read an article from the Liberal Guardian, that headlined "Rittenhouse wasn't convicted because in America, white reasoning rules".

And these fucking morons like to believe that they sit up on high, in some intellectual tower.

Dogs have more common sense than Liberals, like all the morons that work at the Guardian newspaper.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

How moronic can they be if they're winning overall, SHARK? Good faith people are on the ropes right now.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: myleftnut on November 21, 2021, 12:19:41 AM
Why is he "clearly a moron?"

I wouldn't say a moron, but what he did was dangerous and risky. But in general I think what he did was ethical.
We can't decry a public lack of ethics and then call people morons when they put their life on the line to do something good.

I realize I’m being too harsh on the kid but what he did was incredibly stupid. He could be dead right now.  This wasn’t his town/neighborhood.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the one person who had to resort to deadly force was a 16 year old.


He was literally trying to protect his grandpa's business, in the town where his dad lives, a ten-minute drive from where he lives most of the time.

But hey, in one sense you're right. Kyle wouldn't have NEEDED to be there if the GOVERNMENT had done its job, sent in huge numbers of police to STOP THE RIOT and ARREST AND CHARGE all the antifa terrorists.
But they didn't do that, they just gave them carte blanche to loot, vandalize, rape, kill and burn the city to the ground.

Even so, we wouldn't have needed a 16 year old kid there to stand up to them, if there were ADULT MEN in Kenosha who would have taken up arms and stopped these fucking terrorists in their tracks.

So OK, the hero had to be a 16 year old kid. David had to do it because all the rest of the tribe were too scared to take on Goliath. That's how you end up becoming the king.

I didn’t realize he had any connections to the town.  I really haven’t followed the case other than seeing the list of charges and of course the video of the shootings.  The video is all you need to see.  How anyone of any political persuasion can look at that and call it anything other than self defense is baffling.  Infuriating actually.  We got SHARK out here conflating liberal with marxists.  What’s actually going on is these people are actual fucking commies who are taking advantage of liberals who are too afraid of being called racist, therefore are apologists to this madness.  When if they actually looked into it they would realize all these motherfuckers are white.  All this shit, SJW, BLM, Antifa… are just another set of white culture that I don’t understand. 

Unfortunately we have to be pragmatic to survive these days.  I’ll use my gun to protect my home, family and person.  If my business across town was being wrecked during one of these riots I would be risking my ass and therefore my family if I tried to defend it.  I would hope insurance would bail me out.  Think about it.  They charged a child with first degree intentional homicide when he fired literally a second before he was about to get smashed.  One of these fucks pointed a gun at him and it was even discharged right before.  Imagine what they would have done if one of the “good ol boys” had done this and it wasn’t on tape.  That guy would be fucked right up the ass. 

I’m Latino by the way.  I don’t know if you’ve noticed but they’re calling us white supremacists on occasion now.    ::)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 21, 2021, 03:26:58 AM
Why is he "clearly a moron?"

I wouldn't say a moron, but what he did was dangerous and risky. But in general I think what he did was ethical.
We can't decry a public lack of ethics and then call people morons when they put their life on the line to do something good.

I realize I’m being too harsh on the kid but what he did was incredibly stupid. He could be dead right now.  This wasn’t his town/neighborhood.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the one person who had to resort to deadly force was a 16 year old.


He was literally trying to protect his grandpa's business, in the town where his dad lives, a ten-minute drive from where he lives most of the time.

But hey, in one sense you're right. Kyle wouldn't have NEEDED to be there if the GOVERNMENT had done its job, sent in huge numbers of police to STOP THE RIOT and ARREST AND CHARGE all the antifa terrorists.
But they didn't do that, they just gave them carte blanche to loot, vandalize, rape, kill and burn the city to the ground.

Even so, we wouldn't have needed a 16 year old kid there to stand up to them, if there were ADULT MEN in Kenosha who would have taken up arms and stopped these fucking terrorists in their tracks.

So OK, the hero had to be a 16 year old kid. David had to do it because all the rest of the tribe were too scared to take on Goliath. That's how you end up becoming the king.

I didn’t realize he had any connections to the town.  I really haven’t followed the case other than seeing the list of charges and of course the video of the shootings.  The video is all you need to see.  How anyone of any political persuasion can look at that and call it anything other than self defense is baffling.  Infuriating actually.  We got SHARK out here conflating liberal with marxists.  What’s actually going on is these people are actual fucking commies who are taking advantage of liberals who are too afraid of being called racist, therefore are apologists to this madness.  When if they actually looked into it they would realize all these motherfuckers are white.  All this shit, SJW, BLM, Antifa… are just another set of white culture that I don’t understand. 

Unfortunately we have to be pragmatic to survive these days.  I’ll use my gun to protect my home, family and person.  If my business across town was being wrecked during one of these riots I would be risking my ass and therefore my family if I tried to defend it.  I would hope insurance would bail me out.  Think about it.  They charged a child with first degree intentional homicide when he fired literally a second before he was about to get smashed.  One of these fucks pointed a gun at him and it was even discharged right before.  Imagine what they would have done if one of the “good ol boys” had done this and it wasn’t on tape.  That guy would be fucked right up the ass. 

I’m Latino by the way.  I don’t know if you’ve noticed but they’re calling us white supremacists on occasion now.    ::)

Greetings!

Yep, Myleftnut, the Communists are calling Latinos "White Supremacists" now. Pundit himself has been called a "White Supremacist". The LA Times made an article, either front page or an editorial, saying that LARRY ELDER was the "Black Face of White Supremacy!"

By the way--all of those folks over at the LA Times call themselves Liberals.

Anymore, I don't really care about Liberals. If they are not adamantly standing against the Marxists...then, guess what?

They are worthless, like mewling slugs, helping the Marxists. So, they are Marxists. The time is now, to choose. Either they are against the Marxists, or they are with them. I am no less forgiving of RINOS, either. No apologies. Either stand the fuck up, or you get thrown to the sharks.

What's that snappy little expression? "You are either part of the solution or...part of the problem."

The "Mushy Middle" are worthless cowards. I have zero sympathy for people of any race, class, religion, background--anyone--that supports the Marxists, or meekly, like chewy, gummy, scum-sucking sheep, stand by and let the Marxists dominate, conquer, and enslave.

So, yeah, that's right. At the end of the day, if they aren't standing against the Marxists, then they are one and the same. Whether that makes them feel all cozy inside or not, too fucking bad. My country is on fucking fire and choking in shit. I have zero fucks given. I'm only interested in joining, serving, supporting, and helping true PATRIOTS. Everyone else are just like fucking zombies.

I don't like the circumstance we are in as a nation. I didn't choose it, or desire this road in any way, shape or form. I have resisted, fought, and stood for everything to be strong, and good, and better than all of this bullshit. *Shrugs* This is what so many of these scum want, so that's what they get.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 21, 2021, 03:33:23 AM
Greetings!

*Laughing* So pathetic. Liberals really do have jello for brains. Their entire minds are filled with cat food. I read an article from the Liberal Guardian, that headlined "Rittenhouse wasn't convicted because in America, white reasoning rules".

And these fucking morons like to believe that they sit up on high, in some intellectual tower.

Dogs have more common sense than Liberals, like all the morons that work at the Guardian newspaper.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

How moronic can they be if they're winning overall, SHARK? Good faith people are on the ropes right now.

Greetings!

Yeah, Neoplatonist, that's what they want. So, they will get what's coming to them. They will all choke on napalm, one way or the other. Their attitudes, policies, evil, and wicked ideologies will bring utter ruin and destruction to this country. They can laugh, and feel so smug. But though they think they are wise, they are utter fools, and head like stupid sheep to the slaughter. Wrath, and fire, and death will come upon them, and though they gnash their teeth and weep and beg, there shall be no mercy shown to them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 21, 2021, 03:56:32 AM
Greetings!

Salty Cracker takes mushy middle, compromising worms to task, and reminds every good patriot how FUCKING WOKE BLACK RIFLE COFFEE COMPANY is.

Hilarious, as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 21, 2021, 09:42:22 AM
How moronic can they be if they're winning overall, SHARK? Good faith people are on the ropes right now.

Greetings!

Yeah, Neoplatonist, that's what they want. So, they will get what's coming to them. They will all choke on napalm, one way or the other. Their attitudes, policies, evil, and wicked ideologies will bring utter ruin and destruction to this country. They can laugh, and feel so smug. But though they think they are wise, they are utter fools, and head like stupid sheep to the slaughter. Wrath, and fire, and death will come upon them, and though they gnash their teeth and weep and beg, there shall be no mercy shown to them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Ah. so the Liberals are morons because they're useful idiots for the Marxists. I get it.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 21, 2021, 10:22:20 AM
The cope and seethe is so delicious. They NEEDED Rittenhouse guilty, and they didn't get it.

Now you have retards asking 'but can the prosecution appeal?'. And if any of those dumb fucks had taken a high-school level civics course, they'd know the answer (for the terminally unprepared, it's no).

And plenty of 'oh my god, right wing death squads are coming!' without any thought about what we saw ALL. LAST. YEAR.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 21, 2021, 10:29:59 AM
Why is he "clearly a moron?"

I wouldn't say a moron, but what he did was dangerous and risky. But in general I think what he did was ethical.
We can't decry a public lack of ethics and then call people morons when they put their life on the line to do something good.

I realize I’m being too harsh on the kid but what he did was incredibly stupid. He could be dead right now.  This wasn’t his town/neighborhood.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the one person who had to resort to deadly force was a 16 year old.


He was literally trying to protect his grandpa's business, in the town where his dad lives, a ten-minute drive from where he lives most of the time.

But hey, in one sense you're right. Kyle wouldn't have NEEDED to be there if the GOVERNMENT had done its job, sent in huge numbers of police to STOP THE RIOT and ARREST AND CHARGE all the antifa terrorists.
But they didn't do that, they just gave them carte blanche to loot, vandalize, rape, kill and burn the city to the ground.

Even so, we wouldn't have needed a 16 year old kid there to stand up to them, if there were ADULT MEN in Kenosha who would have taken up arms and stopped these fucking terrorists in their tracks.

So OK, the hero had to be a 16 year old kid. David had to do it because all the rest of the tribe were too scared to take on Goliath. That's how you end up becoming the king.

I didn’t realize he had any connections to the town.  I really haven’t followed the case other than seeing the list of charges and of course the video of the shootings.  The video is all you need to see.  How anyone of any political persuasion can look at that and call it anything other than self defense is baffling.  Infuriating actually.  We got SHARK out here conflating liberal with marxists.  What’s actually going on is these people are actual fucking commies who are taking advantage of liberals who are too afraid of being called racist, therefore are apologists to this madness.  When if they actually looked into it they would realize all these motherfuckers are white.  All this shit, SJW, BLM, Antifa… are just another set of white culture that I don’t understand. 

Unfortunately we have to be pragmatic to survive these days.  I’ll use my gun to protect my home, family and person.  If my business across town was being wrecked during one of these riots I would be risking my ass and therefore my family if I tried to defend it.  I would hope insurance would bail me out.  Think about it.  They charged a child with first degree intentional homicide when he fired literally a second before he was about to get smashed.  One of these fucks pointed a gun at him and it was even discharged right before.  Imagine what they would have done if one of the “good ol boys” had done this and it wasn’t on tape.  That guy would be fucked right up the ass. 

I’m Latino by the way.  I don’t know if you’ve noticed but they’re calling us white supremacists on occasion now.    ::)

So - a couple of points you raise:

1.  "I didn't know [fact about this case]...". Yep - the entire MSM had been complicit in keeping the facts from the public, aided and abetted by Democrat politicians and SJW activists.  Those of us who did the homework instead of relying on MSNBC or CNN knew he was innocent within a week of the incident.

2. Hoping insurance covers your losses should rioters and looters destroy it.  Any time leftist assholes defend looting as a victimless crime, they always say "what's the big deal, you have insurance." Yeah. No you don't.  With few exceptions, insurance won't cover these losses because the insurers have exceptions for force majeure events - like wars, natural disasters, and looting/rioting.  Many small business owners are left empty-handed.

3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 21, 2021, 10:49:40 AM
2. Hoping insurance covers your losses should rioters and looters destroy it.  Any time leftist assholes defend looting as a victimless crime, they always say "what's the big deal, you have insurance." Yeah. No you don't.  With few exceptions, insurance won't cover these losses because the insurers have exceptions for force majeure events - like wars, natural disasters, and looting/rioting.  Many small business owners are left empty-handed.

Do you have a convenient source confirming this?

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 21, 2021, 11:13:25 AM
I'd be happy to platform a conservative competitor in the hopes off putting them out if business, but we all know go fund me will stay in business because there are so many more leftists who are engaged in criminal activity than there are conservatives.

GiveSendGo (https://www.givesendgo.com/) exists.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 21, 2021, 11:44:04 AM

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?
Armed lunatics by and large tend to seek out places that lack anyone with a gun to counter them. Gun free zones are a favorite target of the lunatic. In regards to a riot turning into a firefight, yes, that possibility might incur. I’d argue that ought to be great encouragement to mayors and governors to more quickly and forcefully counter the riots as they start rather than give them “space to destroy” as they did in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, etc.:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/%3famp

I have no problem with the actual peaceful protests, and I support efforts to reform/demilitarize the police because there are documented problems with police interactions with minorities. These problems also happen to whites, but seem to be less common, and the minority communities have a heightened awareness of the problems they face. There was a protest in the city l live, but it remained peaceful throughout the day and the night. Nobody should have sympathy for those wanting to riot, loot and burn. There are provocateurs who are encouraging the riots, and too many government officials are giving them the space to destroy. I want to avoid the great American shootout as well, but the odds of that occurring are only going to increase the longer the rioters are treated as jaywalkers by the authorities. The mainstream media and most of the commentators are complicit in this by referring to the riots as protests. That reporter describing a riot as a “fiery, but mostly peaceful protest” wasn’t a simple verbal mistake. That was the media trying to gaslight the public into believing that rioting is normal civic practice.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 21, 2021, 11:45:59 AM
2. Hoping insurance covers your losses should rioters and looters destroy it.  Any time leftist assholes defend looting as a victimless crime, they always say "what's the big deal, you have insurance." Yeah. No you don't.  With few exceptions, insurance won't cover these losses because the insurers have exceptions for force majeure events - like wars, natural disasters, and looting/rioting.  Many small business owners are left empty-handed.

Do you have a convenient source confirming this?

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?

https://fee.org/articles/does-insurance-cover-rioting-and-looting-damage-either-way-its-disastrous/

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/downtown-portland-businesses-face-rising-insurance-costs-decreased-coverage-after-riots/283-f29140a0-9442-44b0-b555-295c8697c509

https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2020/06/articles/insurance/what-exactly-is-a-riot-and-civil-commotion-under-a-property-insurance-policy/

Bottom line - unless you have specific riders, even if you should be covered, you'll either have a fight with your insurer, or they won't make you whole. 

In my hypothetical?  What's stopping the lunatic is what *always* stops them - a large amount of armed citizens whose mere presence is a deterrent or who will quickly end a lunatic's rampage which prevents them from killing many people, unimpeded.  In *every* instance of an active shooter, armed citizens have ended their rampage much more quickly than when they weren't armed and had to cower while waiting for the police.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 21, 2021, 11:49:08 AM

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?
Armed lunatics by and large tend to seek out places that lack anyone with a gun to counter them. Gun free zones are a favorite target of the lunatic. In regards to a riot turning into a firefight, yes, that possibility might incur. I’d argue that ought to be great encouragement to mayors and governors to more quickly and forcefully counter the riots as they start rather than give them “space to destroy” as they did in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, etc.:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/%3famp

I have no problem with the actual peaceful protests, and I support efforts to reform/demilitarize the police because there are documented problems with police interactions with minorities. These problems also happen to whites, but seem to be less common, and the minority communities have a heightened awareness of the problems they face. There was a protest in the city l live, but it remained peaceful throughout the day and the night. Nobody should have sympathy for those wanting to riot, loot and burn. There are provocateurs who are encouraging the riots, and too many government officials are giving them the space to destroy. I want to avoid the great American shootout as well, but the odds of that occurring are only going to increase the longer the rioters are treated as jaywalkers by the authorities. The mainstream media and most of the commentators are complicit in this by referring to the riots as protests. That reporter describing a riot as a “fiery, but mostly peaceful protest” wasn’t a simple verbal mistake. That was the media trying to gaslight the public into believing that rioting is normal civic practice.

There are reports of ~ 200 rioters cornering riot police in a garage last night in Portland.  I don't get it - you're armed. Order them to disperse and hit 'em with tear gas if they don't before it gets to that point.  Once it got to that point, you should have opened fire, killing as many of them as possible.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 21, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
2. Hoping insurance covers your losses should rioters and looters destroy it.  Any time leftist assholes defend looting as a victimless crime, they always say "what's the big deal, you have insurance." Yeah. No you don't.  With few exceptions, insurance won't cover these losses because the insurers have exceptions for force majeure events - like wars, natural disasters, and looting/rioting.  Many small business owners are left empty-handed.

Do you have a convenient source confirming this?

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?

https://fee.org/articles/does-insurance-cover-rioting-and-looting-damage-either-way-its-disastrous/

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/downtown-portland-businesses-face-rising-insurance-costs-decreased-coverage-after-riots/283-f29140a0-9442-44b0-b555-295c8697c509

https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2020/06/articles/insurance/what-exactly-is-a-riot-and-civil-commotion-under-a-property-insurance-policy/

Bottom line - unless you have specific riders, even if you should be covered, you'll either have a fight with your insurer, or they won't make you whole. 

In my hypothetical?  What's stopping the lunatic is what *always* stops them - a large amount of armed citizens whose mere presence is a deterrent or who will quickly end a lunatic's rampage which prevents them from killing many people, unimpeded.  In *every* instance of an active shooter, armed citizens have ended their rampage much more quickly than when they weren't armed and had to cower while waiting for the police.

Greeings!

*Laughing* That's right, my friend! Here where I live, we occasionally have some nut or jackass try and pull something. Many times, an armed citizen shoots them fucking dead, fast. The rest of the time, we have swift police response here, who bring the hammer down hard on thugs and criminals. That's the way we like it in Idaho. ;D

And Idaho is a pro 2nd Amendment state. People are free here to arm themselves in just about any way they want. Open carry or concealed. Lots of normal citizens here are armed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 21, 2021, 12:04:40 PM

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?
Armed lunatics by and large tend to seek out places that lack anyone with a gun to counter them. Gun free zones are a favorite target of the lunatic. In regards to a riot turning into a firefight, yes, that possibility might incur. I’d argue that ought to be great encouragement to mayors and governors to more quickly and forcefully counter the riots as they start rather than give them “space to destroy” as they did in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, etc.:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/%3famp

I have no problem with the actual peaceful protests, and I support efforts to reform/demilitarize the police because there are documented problems with police interactions with minorities. These problems also happen to whites, but seem to be less common, and the minority communities have a heightened awareness of the problems they face. There was a protest in the city l live, but it remained peaceful throughout the day and the night. Nobody should have sympathy for those wanting to riot, loot and burn. There are provocateurs who are encouraging the riots, and too many government officials are giving them the space to destroy. I want to avoid the great American shootout as well, but the odds of that occurring are only going to increase the longer the rioters are treated as jaywalkers by the authorities. The mainstream media and most of the commentators are complicit in this by referring to the riots as protests. That reporter describing a riot as a “fiery, but mostly peaceful protest” wasn’t a simple verbal mistake. That was the media trying to gaslight the public into believing that rioting is normal civic practice.

There are reports of ~ 200 rioters cornering riot police in a garage last night in Portland.  I don't get it - you're armed. Order them to disperse and hit 'em with tear gas if they don't before it gets to that point.  Once it got to that point, you should have opened fire, killing as many of them as possible.
I disagree with the “as many as possible.” They should have escalated force as much as necessary to quell the riot, and if that included reaching lethal force, then that is what it takes. When you say “as many as possible” that bring to mind trying to lure the rioters into a kill zone to cause as many fatalities as possible.

If it reaches the point of lethal force it won’t take that many actual casualties. Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that. I think a part of what drives the ANTIFA provocateurs nuts about Rittenhouse is that they realize that their tactic of rioting turns into a losing proposition as people realize they have a right to defend themselves. At this point ANTIFA would have rather no charges had been brought at all against Rittenhouse. That way they can continue to blame “the system” for the lack of charges, and there wouldn’t be a legally confirmed positive example of someone defending themselves.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Kiero on November 21, 2021, 12:07:45 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 21, 2021, 12:53:12 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 21, 2021, 01:12:52 PM

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?
Armed lunatics by and large tend to seek out places that lack anyone with a gun to counter them. Gun free zones are a favorite target of the lunatic. In regards to a riot turning into a firefight, yes, that possibility might incur. I’d argue that ought to be great encouragement to mayors and governors to more quickly and forcefully counter the riots as they start rather than give them “space to destroy” as they did in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, etc.:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/%3famp

I have no problem with the actual peaceful protests, and I support efforts to reform/demilitarize the police because there are documented problems with police interactions with minorities. These problems also happen to whites, but seem to be less common, and the minority communities have a heightened awareness of the problems they face. There was a protest in the city l live, but it remained peaceful throughout the day and the night. Nobody should have sympathy for those wanting to riot, loot and burn. There are provocateurs who are encouraging the riots, and too many government officials are giving them the space to destroy. I want to avoid the great American shootout as well, but the odds of that occurring are only going to increase the longer the rioters are treated as jaywalkers by the authorities. The mainstream media and most of the commentators are complicit in this by referring to the riots as protests. That reporter describing a riot as a “fiery, but mostly peaceful protest” wasn’t a simple verbal mistake. That was the media trying to gaslight the public into believing that rioting is normal civic practice.

There are reports of ~ 200 rioters cornering riot police in a garage last night in Portland.  I don't get it - you're armed. Order them to disperse and hit 'em with tear gas if they don't before it gets to that point.  Once it got to that point, you should have opened fire, killing as many of them as possible.
I disagree with the “as many as possible.” They should have escalated force as much as necessary to quell the riot, and if that included reaching lethal force, then that is what it takes. When you say “as many as possible” that bring to mind trying to lure the rioters into a kill zone to cause as many fatalities as possible.

If it reaches the point of lethal force it won’t take that many actual casualties. Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that. I think a part of what drives the ANTIFA provocateurs nuts about Rittenhouse is that they realize that their tactic of rioting turns into a losing proposition as people realize they have a right to defend themselves. At this point ANTIFA would have rather no charges had been brought at all against Rittenhouse. That way they can continue to blame “the system” for the lack of charges, and there wouldn’t be a legally confirmed positive example of someone defending themselves.


You're free to disagree.  It's not luring when the mayor and police commissioner have tied the hands of law enforcement so they can't lob tear gas or use tasers or lethal force, resulting in then having to cower in a garage instead of enforcing the law.  At the point that the police are forced to run resulting in then being cornered, policing goes out the window and now it's about self defense - so yes - kill as many of them as you can.  I don't care if the result is Portland runs out of body bags.  The more rioters and looters killed is 1:1 fewer that can tie again the next night or who can travel to riot somewhere else.  Make no mistake these rioters are paid to travel to different cities to riot.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 21, 2021, 01:14:54 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp

If Babbitt was such a threat, then why did the swat officers behind her not take her into custody? Why did the "rioters" manage to queue like a group of Brits in the hall of statuary, staying between the red velvet ropes?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Trond on November 21, 2021, 02:00:29 PM
.... Liberals really do have jello for brains. Their entire minds are filled with cat food......

As a biologist who has taught human anatomy, and who has A LOT of liberal colleagues and friends.... I can neither confirm nor deny these claims :D 
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 21, 2021, 02:06:06 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 21, 2021, 02:37:04 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.
You love to jump to conclusions. When did I speak to any of the actions taken against those arrested for Jan 6th after the riot?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 21, 2021, 02:38:42 PM
The cope and seethe is so delicious. They NEEDED Rittenhouse guilty, and they didn't get it.

Now you have retards asking 'but can the prosecution appeal?'. And if any of those dumb fucks had taken a high-school level civics course, they'd know the answer (for the terminally unprepared, it's no).

And plenty of 'oh my god, right wing death squads are coming!' without any thought about what we saw ALL. LAST. YEAR.

Dont worry, Ghostmaker, the Feds have got your back!

Nadler is going to make sure Rittenhouse gets his justice.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 21, 2021, 02:40:24 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.

Greetings!

Yes, Pat, I agree with this. I know I can get emotional, and sick of these scum and rant about killing them all. Part of me thinks that would be good. Part of me though, likes what you say here, too.

See? I am *Nuanced* ;D and complex!

The trouble with such an approach though, is that requires genuine commitment, integrity, and a ruthless fidelity to discipline, order, and law, while at the same time keeping a good faith commitment to compassion and justice.

I don't think we have many people like that in our court system, law enforcement, or especially the government. I know there are some, but I think their numbers are fewer and fewer. That was the expectation for everything in jurisprudence 40 years ago.

Now though, Pat? Watching this whole corrupt trial where the prosecution literally wipes their ass with the constitution, with justice, and all these Liberals in the media--Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, lots of other blacks--and lots of politicians--Corey Bush, AOC, Ilhan, whoever the fuck--all demanding that the innocent white boy be fucking destroyed, and justice be damned?

That doesn't incline me to feel merciful, Pat. You know what I'm saying?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 21, 2021, 02:42:00 PM
If it reaches the point of lethal force it won’t take that many actual casualties. Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that. I think a part of what drives the ANTIFA provocateurs nuts about Rittenhouse is that they realize that their tactic of rioting turns into a losing proposition as people realize they have a right to defend themselves. At this point ANTIFA would have rather no charges had been brought at all against Rittenhouse. That way they can continue to blame “the system” for the lack of charges, and there wouldn’t be a legally confirmed positive example of someone defending themselves.

It was even worse then that wmarshal.

Some of the Jan 6 rioters crossed state lines!
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 21, 2021, 02:49:47 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.
You love to jump to conclusions. When did I speak to any of the actions taken against those arrested for Jan 6th after the riot?
You said we need to treat Antifa the way the 1/6 violent insurrectionist terrorist babyeaters were treated. You didn't time-bound it, so the literal interpretation of what you said includes the aftermath.

Notice that while I pointed out the natural consequences of what you actually said, I phrased it as a question. I was clearly indicating I didn't think that was your intent, even though that's what you said.

And then I went on to provide a more nuanced version.

But hey, be a jackass. It's a popular cosplay around here.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 21, 2021, 03:00:03 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.

Greetings!

Yes, Pat, I agree with this. I know I can get emotional, and sick of these scum and rant about killing them all. Part of me thinks that would be good. Part of me though, likes what you say here, too.

See? I am *Nuanced* ;D and complex!

The trouble with such an approach though, is that requires genuine commitment, integrity, and a ruthless fidelity to discipline, order, and law, while at the same time keeping a good faith commitment to compassion and justice.

I don't think we have many people like that in our court system, law enforcement, or especially the government. I know there are some, but I think their numbers are fewer and fewer. That was the expectation for everything in jurisprudence 40 years ago.

Now though, Pat? Watching this whole corrupt trial where the prosecution literally wipes their ass with the constitution, with justice, and all these Liberals in the media--Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, lots of other blacks--and lots of politicians--Corey Bush, AOC, Ilhan, whoever the fuck--all demanding that the innocent white boy be fucking destroyed, and justice be damned?

That doesn't incline me to feel merciful, Pat. You know what I'm saying?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
As H.P. Mencken once said, "Every normal American must be tempted, in this strange aeon, to spit on zir hands, hoist the tentacled flag, and summon Cthulhu to turn Washington into abbatoir."
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 21, 2021, 03:13:58 PM
The cope and seethe is so delicious. They NEEDED Rittenhouse guilty, and they didn't get it.

Now you have retards asking 'but can the prosecution appeal?'. And if any of those dumb fucks had taken a high-school level civics course, they'd know the answer (for the terminally unprepared, it's no).

And plenty of 'oh my god, right wing death squads are coming!' without any thought about what we saw ALL. LAST. YEAR.

Dont worry, Ghostmaker, the Feds have got your back!

Nadler is going to make sure Rittenhouse gets his justice.
Normally I'd laugh, but we just watched the fibbies raid Project Veritas reporters' apartments, collect material, then leak some of it to the NYT.

I honestly think the DOJ is dumb enough to try something.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Melan on November 21, 2021, 05:26:01 PM
And plenty of 'oh my god, right wing death squads are coming!' without any thought about what we saw ALL. LAST. YEAR.
RPGNet was hallucinating right-wing death squads a few weeks after Obama was inaugurated. It is a mental illness.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 21, 2021, 05:29:26 PM
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.

Greetings!

Yes, Pat, I agree with this. I know I can get emotional, and sick of these scum and rant about killing them all. Part of me thinks that would be good. Part of me though, likes what you say here, too.

See? I am *Nuanced* ;D and complex!

The trouble with such an approach though, is that requires genuine commitment, integrity, and a ruthless fidelity to discipline, order, and law, while at the same time keeping a good faith commitment to compassion and justice.

I don't think we have many people like that in our court system, law enforcement, or especially the government. I know there are some, but I think their numbers are fewer and fewer. That was the expectation for everything in jurisprudence 40 years ago.

Now though, Pat? Watching this whole corrupt trial where the prosecution literally wipes their ass with the constitution, with justice, and all these Liberals in the media--Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, lots of other blacks--and lots of politicians--Corey Bush, AOC, Ilhan, whoever the fuck--all demanding that the innocent white boy be fucking destroyed, and justice be damned?

That doesn't incline me to feel merciful, Pat. You know what I'm saying?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Here's the problem though - while I think everyone who goes into law enforcement probably does so with the best off intentions, let's not lose sight of the fact that it only requires a D average in social studies (which is only place where they might get exposed to a modicum of civics) to graduate from most public high schools and the police academy is nowhere near enough training (especially as compared to some countries which actually require a college degree to become a police officer). We also don't do enough to screen the people who definitely should not become cops in the first place - those guys who were bullies in high school who never benefited from their victims having fought back and who lol at being a cop as the opportunity to treat someone like shit with no repercussions.  And most cops are going to obey orders.  Even when those orders come from officials whose only claim to fame was they were not as dumb as their peers in high school such that they percolated into a law degree before running for public office or entering government employ.

That it took a single 17 year old boy to have the moral turpitude to be the*only* person willing to defy a mob of rioters is the tragedy - instead of declaring him a white supremacist murderer, people should have been demanding that the mayor and the governor be removed from office for turning the streets over to the mob instead of restoring order after 3 days of rioting over a thug who was shot 7 times after having been tasered, yet he still decided to confront police officers with a knife.  Oh, and according to the media he dead - even though he's very much alive and even though no charges were filed against the officers.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 21, 2021, 05:51:55 PM
That it took a single 17 year old boy to have the moral turpitude temerity to be the*only* person willing to defy a mob of rioters is the tragedy - instead of declaring him a white supremacist murderer, people should have been demanding that the mayor and the governor be removed from office for turning the streets over to the mob instead of restoring order after 3 days of rioting over a thug who was shot 7 times after having been tasered, yet he still decided to confront police officers with a knife.  Oh, and according to the media he dead - even though he's very much alive and even though no charges were filed against the officers.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 21, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
That it took a single 17 year old boy to have the moral turpitude temerity to be the*only* person willing to defy a mob of rioters is the tragedy - instead of declaring him a white supremacist murderer, people should have been demanding that the mayor and the governor be removed from office for turning the streets over to the mob instead of restoring order after 3 days of rioting over a thug who was shot 7 times after having been tasered, yet he still decided to confront police officers with a knife.  Oh, and according to the media he dead - even though he's very much alive and even though no charges were filed against the officers.

Fixed that for you.

Fucking android autocorrect...  >:(

How the hell did it get "turpitude" from "authority?!?"
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Zelen on November 21, 2021, 09:16:00 PM
I honestly think the DOJ is dumb enough to try something.

Is it really dumb to repeatedly target American citizens (including the President) with illegal actions, if there are no meaningful negative consequences for doing so, and plenty of positive consequences?

From my standpoint the FBI/CIA/DOJ/SoS/Whatever have been getting away with doing blatantly illegal stuff for decades and they've only gotten more powerful by doing it.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 21, 2021, 10:02:34 PM
I honestly think the DOJ is dumb enough to try something.

Is it really dumb to repeatedly target American citizens (including the President) with illegal actions, if there are no meaningful negative consequences for doing so, and plenty of positive consequences?

From my standpoint the FBI/CIA/DOJ/SoS/Whatever have been getting away with doing blatantly illegal stuff for decades and they've only gotten more powerful by doing it.

At least they have always been decent enough to do blatantly illegal stuff where no one can see them doing it.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 22, 2021, 09:07:53 AM
I honestly think the DOJ is dumb enough to try something.

Is it really dumb to repeatedly target American citizens (including the President) with illegal actions, if there are no meaningful negative consequences for doing so, and plenty of positive consequences?

From my standpoint the FBI/CIA/DOJ/SoS/Whatever have been getting away with doing blatantly illegal stuff for decades and they've only gotten more powerful by doing it.

At least they have always been decent enough to do blatantly illegal stuff where no one can see them doing it.

Well - it used to be that way, and it used to be mainly focused on meddling in other countries' politics.  A coup here, a color revolution there, and everyone's happy...  Nowadays, they are exactly like various other organizations like the ACLU, ADL, JDL, etc. They've succeeded in their original mission and now they have no reason to exist - but gotta keep them Benjamins flowing, so they have to invent new things to fight against. 

What people don't realize is this isn't new - it's just that the newer generations of those in charge of the 3-letter agencies aren't as competent at skullduggery as the original guys who were highly educated ivy leaguers who deep down actually did have a kernel of patriotism.  With the expansion of Marxist teachings into colleges and the admittance of academically-unqualified students who happen to be the right color of minority (no Asians need apply), the ranks of 3 letter agencies are replete with hidden communists who hate America.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 22, 2021, 09:57:11 AM
I honestly think the DOJ is dumb enough to try something.

Is it really dumb to repeatedly target American citizens (including the President) with illegal actions, if there are no meaningful negative consequences for doing so, and plenty of positive consequences?

From my standpoint the FBI/CIA/DOJ/SoS/Whatever have been getting away with doing blatantly illegal stuff for decades and they've only gotten more powerful by doing it.

At least they have always been decent enough to do blatantly illegal stuff where no one can see them doing it.

Well - it used to be that way, and it used to be mainly focused on meddling in other countries' politics.  A coup here, a color revolution there, and everyone's happy...  Nowadays, they are exactly like various other organizations like the ACLU, ADL, JDL, etc. They've succeeded in their original mission and now they have no reason to exist - but gotta keep them Benjamins flowing, so they have to invent new things to fight against. 

What people don't realize is this isn't new - it's just that the newer generations of those in charge of the 3-letter agencies aren't as competent at skullduggery as the original guys who were highly educated ivy leaguers who deep down actually did have a kernel of patriotism.  With the expansion of Marxist teachings into colleges and the admittance of academically-unqualified students who happen to be the right color of minority (no Asians need apply), the ranks of 3 letter agencies are replete with hidden communists who hate America.
That last bit bears repeating.

I don't know how many of you got to see the OIG report regarding the FBI's handling of Clinton's emails, but holy fucking shit was it bad. It did NOT paint the fibbies in a good light even by 'villain' standards. We're talking 'jobber villains that Spider-Man forgets five minutes after he's webbed them to a lamppost' levels of stupid.

That's probably what's keeping us alive at this point: the opposition is so rock fucking stupid a serious maskirovka push could probably screw them up beyond all hope.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Trond on November 22, 2021, 11:09:50 AM
I wonder if the Waukesha car-terrorist was somehow enraged by the Rittenhouse verdict. Lots of reports are coming out that he's a far-leftist.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Kiero on November 22, 2021, 11:13:52 AM
I wonder if the Waukesha car-terrorist was somehow enraged by the Rittenhouse verdict. Lots of reports are coming out that he's a far-leftist.

I saw something saying Rosenbaum was his lover in prison.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 22, 2021, 11:18:23 AM
I wonder if the Waukesha car-terrorist was somehow enraged by the Rittenhouse verdict. Lots of reports are coming out that he's a far-leftist.

I saw something saying Rosenbaum was his lover in prison.
Doubtful. Rosenbaum liked little boys.

No, my guess is he's just a garden variety scumbag who decided he hated people and had the excuse he wanted to let it out.

He'll get his day in court. I'm sure one of our resident bootlickers will be along shortly though to tell us how it was all a big misunderstanding and he was Oppressed By The System.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 22, 2021, 11:27:00 AM
I wonder if the Waukesha car-terrorist was somehow enraged by the Rittenhouse verdict. Lots of reports are coming out that he's a far-leftist.

I saw something saying Rosenbaum was his lover in prison.
Doubtful. Rosenbaum liked little boys.

No, my guess is he's just a garden variety scumbag who decided he hated people and had the excuse he wanted to let it out.

He'll get his day in court. I'm sure one of our resident bootlickers will be along shortly though to tell us how it was all a big misunderstanding and he was Oppressed By The System.

Local authorities are claiming that they believe it was not terrorism and he was just fleeing a knife fight crime scene.  This after being released on $1000 bail for previous crimes while having a lengthy criminal record.

Perhaps if the career criminal had been left inside while awaiting trial this wouldn't have happened, regardless of why he did it...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Trond on November 22, 2021, 11:40:38 AM
https://twitter.com/i/status/1462636942126993410

The way some news outlets are handling it is pretty damn pathetic.
"It was a black guy with dreadlocks"
"I need to remind you that you are on live TV!"

....and turns out that was an accurate description.
But no, I don't think this was just him fleeing, or some sort of general malice towards humanity (though he's probably a misanthrope).
He's talked about doing this before, he's rapped about how bad Trump and the cops are etc etc.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 22, 2021, 12:26:55 PM
https://twitter.com/i/status/1462636942126993410

The way some news outlets are handling it is pretty damn pathetic.
"It was a black guy with dreadlocks"
"I need to remind you that you are on live TV!"

....and turns out that was an accurate description.
But no, I don't think this was just him fleeing, or some sort of general malice towards humanity (though he's probably a misanthrope).
He's talked about doing this before, he's rapped about how bad Trump and the cops are etc etc.

Greetings!

Yep! Just yet another Leftist scum bag! Fucking animals. B-u-t us L-e-ftisstsss are principled! We're intellectual and educated!!

Watch how the cock-sucking Leftist Media spins this, too.

Napalm. They all need to drink napalm. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: RPGPundit on November 22, 2021, 01:37:42 PM
The mountains of Salt produced by the Rittenhouse verdict might just be enough resources to save the US Economy, even from Biden!

My favorite thus far being a liberal on twitter who responded angrily to a tweet I made where I criticized how the Left have been claiming that Huber and Rosenbaum were "heroes", where she adamantly called me a liar and said the left never did any such thing. It took me second to get a half-dozen images to post in response showing Anti-Rittenhouse demonstrators, Leftist civil servants, Hollywood celebrities, and Antifa/BLM terrorists all either tweeting or holding up signs that explicitly claim the wife-beater and child-rapist were "HEROES".

Of course she immediately blocked me!

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 22, 2021, 02:42:37 PM
https://twitter.com/i/status/1462636942126993410

The way some news outlets are handling it is pretty damn pathetic.
"It was a black guy with dreadlocks"
"I need to remind you that you are on live TV!"

....and turns out that was an accurate description.
But no, I don't think this was just him fleeing, or some sort of general malice towards humanity (though he's probably a misanthrope).
He's talked about doing this before, he's rapped about how bad Trump and the cops are etc etc.

Greetings!

Yep! Just yet another Leftist scum bag! Fucking animals. B-u-t us L-e-ftisstsss are principled! We're intellectual and educated!!

Watch how the cock-sucking Leftist Media spins this, too.

Napalm. They all need to drink napalm. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 22, 2021, 02:49:37 PM
https://twitter.com/i/status/1462636942126993410

The way some news outlets are handling it is pretty damn pathetic.
"It was a black guy with dreadlocks"
"I need to remind you that you are on live TV!"

....and turns out that was an accurate description.
But no, I don't think this was just him fleeing, or some sort of general malice towards humanity (though he's probably a misanthrope).
He's talked about doing this before, he's rapped about how bad Trump and the cops are etc etc.

Greetings!

Yep! Just yet another Leftist scum bag! Fucking animals. B-u-t us L-e-ftisstsss are principled! We're intellectual and educated!!

Watch how the cock-sucking Leftist Media spins this, too.

Napalm. They all need to drink napalm. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
Reminds me of a remark someone made about black storeowners protecting their property back during the Summer of Lurve in May 2020.

"Personally, I have a serious problem with what I saw in that video.  The guy in the tan pants is trusting his life to a Kriss Vector.  Don’t ever do that.  They are jam-happy pieces of shit."
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 22, 2021, 02:58:05 PM

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
States could support that. Militias are traditionally under the authority of the states, but a couple of laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War and then in the first years of the 20th century that federalized recruitment and then financing. But you could make a strong argument those laws are constitutionally illegitimate, and push the power to raise militias back to the local level. The hitch, of course, is very few of the places that went up in flames in 2020 are politically aligned in that direction.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Arkansan on November 22, 2021, 03:16:53 PM
NPR's hard the gall to run a story this morning bitching about the fact that Waukesha still calls it's annual "Holiday" parade a Christmas parade. The media is absolutely the enemy of the public.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 22, 2021, 06:10:05 PM

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
States could support that. Militias are traditionally under the authority of the states, but a couple of laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War and then in the first years of the 20th century that federalized recruitment and then financing. But you could make a strong argument those laws are constitutionally illegitimate, and push the power to raise militias back to the local level. The hitch, of course, is very few of the places that went up in flames in 2020 are politically aligned in that direction.

States don't need to support it - they just need to get out of the way.  Local is where it is.  You're always more vested in your neighbors than some asshole from halfway across the state.  Here in Jersey, those of us in the southern part of the state are closer in values to folks from WV, TN, upstate ME, northern CA, TX, etc. than we are to the leftists in the northern part of the state.  Lots of rural territory, lots of hunting, etc. here than in shitholes like Newark where they're all mixed together living like pigs where gun control laws are needed moreso than down here.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 22, 2021, 06:12:10 PM
https://twitter.com/i/status/1462636942126993410

The way some news outlets are handling it is pretty damn pathetic.
"It was a black guy with dreadlocks"
"I need to remind you that you are on live TV!"

....and turns out that was an accurate description.
But no, I don't think this was just him fleeing, or some sort of general malice towards humanity (though he's probably a misanthrope).
He's talked about doing this before, he's rapped about how bad Trump and the cops are etc etc.

Greetings!

Yep! Just yet another Leftist scum bag! Fucking animals. B-u-t us L-e-ftisstsss are principled! We're intellectual and educated!!

Watch how the cock-sucking Leftist Media spins this, too.

Napalm. They all need to drink napalm. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
Reminds me of a remark someone made about black storeowners protecting their property back during the Summer of Lurve in May 2020.

"Personally, I have a serious problem with what I saw in that video.  The guy in the tan pants is trusting his life to a Kriss Vector.  Don’t ever do that.  They are jam-happy pieces of shit."

And I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the commenter is white - and the store owners' skin color made no difference to him because they're good people forced to defend themselves and their life's work from an angry mob of self-entitled assholes.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Spinachcat on November 22, 2021, 06:59:59 PM
In LA last year, the Burn Loot Murder freaks attacked, looted and torched many LATINO owned businesses which surprised no one who was in LA during the Rodney King riots which attacked, looted and torched many BLACK owned businesses.

It only took a day for our enchilada eating bretheren to take a page from our kimchi eating brethern of the 90s. While the Latinos didn't take to the rooftops, they were front and center in front of their stores with bats and barely hidden shotguns. IIRC, the Latino guy with the chainsaw was in Texas.

Remember kids, it's patriots vs. traitors...and both sides come in all colors.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 22, 2021, 09:36:52 PM

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
States could support that. Militias are traditionally under the authority of the states, but a couple of laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War and then in the first years of the 20th century that federalized recruitment and then financing. But you could make a strong argument those laws are constitutionally illegitimate, and push the power to raise militias back to the local level. The hitch, of course, is very few of the places that went up in flames in 2020 are politically aligned in that direction.

States don't need to support it - they just need to get out of the way.  Local is where it is.  You're always more vested in your neighbors than some asshole from halfway across the state.  Here in Jersey, those of us in the southern part of the state are closer in values to folks from WV, TN, upstate ME, northern CA, TX, etc. than we are to the leftists in the northern part of the state.  Lots of rural territory, lots of hunting, etc. here than in shitholes like Newark where they're all mixed together living like pigs where gun control laws are needed moreso than down here.
States provide a buffer. The Constitution doesn't allocate any powers to local governments, just to the federal government (very little power), the states, and the people.

New Jersey is a home rule state, so the state has already delegated a lot of that responsibility to municipal governments (and counties to some degree, but they're the red-headed stepchildren of government tiers, and only have a few quirky responsibilities). Other states are more centralized, some much more so. This is typically defined in their constitutions.

You forgot to mention the nuclear power plants. Everyone from the Pine Barrens or further south glows in the dark. :)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 23, 2021, 07:09:23 AM
One thing of note:

We should all take a swig of something every time some idiot blathers on about “crossing state lines” as if it has any significance or basis in reality to what they hope it means.

I figure we’ll all have alcohol poisoning within 10 minutes.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 23, 2021, 07:59:49 AM

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
States could support that. Militias are traditionally under the authority of the states, but a couple of laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War and then in the first years of the 20th century that federalized recruitment and then financing. But you could make a strong argument those laws are constitutionally illegitimate, and push the power to raise militias back to the local level. The hitch, of course, is very few of the places that went up in flames in 2020 are politically aligned in that direction.

States don't need to support it - they just need to get out of the way.  Local is where it is.  You're always more vested in your neighbors than some asshole from halfway across the state.  Here in Jersey, those of us in the southern part of the state are closer in values to folks from WV, TN, upstate ME, northern CA, TX, etc. than we are to the leftists in the northern part of the state.  Lots of rural territory, lots of hunting, etc. here than in shitholes like Newark where they're all mixed together living like pigs where gun control laws are needed moreso than down here.
States provide a buffer. The Constitution doesn't allocate any powers to local governments, just to the federal government (very little power), the states, and the people.

New Jersey is a home rule state, so the state has already delegated a lot of that responsibility to municipal governments (and counties to some degree, but they're the red-headed stepchildren of government tiers, and only have a few quirky responsibilities). Other states are more centralized, some much more so. This is typically defined in their constitutions.

You forgot to mention the nuclear power plants. Everyone from the Pine Barrens or further south glows in the dark. :)

It would help if Jersey were a shall issue state.  I don't know any other state that is ridiculous about it.  First - I gotta apply to get an ID card before I can even consider buying a gun - which can take up to 6 months. Now, I then gotta buy a separate permit for each individual handgun?!?!  I then have to go and fill out the NJ background check (which takes up to 12 days rather than 20 mins like everywhere else in the country) - after I've already had two sets of background checks (one for the ID card, and a second one for the handgun permit).  At any point in the process, it can be stopped dead in it's tracks - even if the background checks come back clear - based on the whim of the local police chief or the Staties. Not only that, but you give up several constitutional protections to even apply to begin with. But hey, at least there is no limit on the number of antique cannons you can obtain once you have your ID card...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 23, 2021, 08:02:45 AM
One thing of note:

We should all take a swig of something every time some idiot blathers on about “crossing state lines” as if it has any significance or basis in reality to what they hope it means.

I figure we’ll all have alcohol poisoning within 10 minutes.

All it illustrates is how lazy and stupid the general public is that they keep repeating it.  I'm waiting to see how many fools who are celebrities or politicians are gonna get sued for defaming Rittenhouse *after* the verdict.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 23, 2021, 08:35:46 AM
One thing of note:

We should all take a swig of something every time some idiot blathers on about “crossing state lines” as if it has any significance or basis in reality to what they hope it means.

I figure we’ll all have alcohol poisoning within 10 minutes.
The same people will sanctimoniously inform you that borders don't matter and are just lines on a map.

Lulz.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on November 23, 2021, 10:10:57 AM
I'm waiting to see how many fools who are celebrities or politicians are gonna get sued for defaming Rittenhouse *after* the verdict.

Probably not gonna happen for a while if at all. The guy just barely escaped prison. He's not gonna want to step in court for another year. But I hope he does because they deserve to know actions have consequences.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: wmarshal on November 23, 2021, 10:33:46 AM
One thing of note:

We should all take a swig of something every time some idiot blathers on about “crossing state lines” as if it has any significance or basis in reality to what they hope it means.

I figure we’ll all have alcohol poisoning within 10 minutes.
Are you trying to Jim Jones us? I give you points for at least trying to kill us with alcohol instead of Flavor-Aid.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 23, 2021, 02:08:05 PM

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
States could support that. Militias are traditionally under the authority of the states, but a couple of laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War and then in the first years of the 20th century that federalized recruitment and then financing. But you could make a strong argument those laws are constitutionally illegitimate, and push the power to raise militias back to the local level. The hitch, of course, is very few of the places that went up in flames in 2020 are politically aligned in that direction.

States don't need to support it - they just need to get out of the way.  Local is where it is.  You're always more vested in your neighbors than some asshole from halfway across the state.  Here in Jersey, those of us in the southern part of the state are closer in values to folks from WV, TN, upstate ME, northern CA, TX, etc. than we are to the leftists in the northern part of the state.  Lots of rural territory, lots of hunting, etc. here than in shitholes like Newark where they're all mixed together living like pigs where gun control laws are needed moreso than down here.
States provide a buffer. The Constitution doesn't allocate any powers to local governments, just to the federal government (very little power), the states, and the people.

New Jersey is a home rule state, so the state has already delegated a lot of that responsibility to municipal governments (and counties to some degree, but they're the red-headed stepchildren of government tiers, and only have a few quirky responsibilities). Other states are more centralized, some much more so. This is typically defined in their constitutions.

You forgot to mention the nuclear power plants. Everyone from the Pine Barrens or further south glows in the dark. :)

It would help if Jersey were a shall issue state.  I don't know any other state that is ridiculous about it.  First - I gotta apply to get an ID card before I can even consider buying a gun - which can take up to 6 months. Now, I then gotta buy a separate permit for each individual handgun?!?!  I then have to go and fill out the NJ background check (which takes up to 12 days rather than 20 mins like everywhere else in the country) - after I've already had two sets of background checks (one for the ID card, and a second one for the handgun permit).  At any point in the process, it can be stopped dead in it's tracks - even if the background checks come back clear - based on the whim of the local police chief or the Staties. Not only that, but you give up several constitutional protections to even apply to begin with. But hey, at least there is no limit on the number of antique cannons you can obtain once you have your ID card...

Greetings!

My friend, you are living under a Communist tyranny. All of those stupid bureaucratic hoops to ump through, all of the restrictions, all of it--is unconstitutional, and an expression of fucking evil tyranny.

If you were to go to a Constitutional State, like where I live, and have zero restrictions. No hoops. The sheriff or police have no authority to tell me what firearms I can or can't have. It doesn't take days, weeks, or months to get any firearm that you want. It takes precisely about 20 minutes. That's it.

And, the selection. Gun stores here are *EQUIPPED*.

My state has it in the state constitution that every man can have weapons, and anyone can open carry or conceal carry, as YOU choose, no special permits required. Just like our Constitution intended.

The true freedom is so pure here, you would laugh with joy after taking a trip to a gun store, and arming up with all the guns you want, all the magazines you want, and all the ammunition you want.

Fuck the Communist Tyrant states! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 23, 2021, 02:11:28 PM

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
States could support that. Militias are traditionally under the authority of the states, but a couple of laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War and then in the first years of the 20th century that federalized recruitment and then financing. But you could make a strong argument those laws are constitutionally illegitimate, and push the power to raise militias back to the local level. The hitch, of course, is very few of the places that went up in flames in 2020 are politically aligned in that direction.

States don't need to support it - they just need to get out of the way.  Local is where it is.  You're always more vested in your neighbors than some asshole from halfway across the state.  Here in Jersey, those of us in the southern part of the state are closer in values to folks from WV, TN, upstate ME, northern CA, TX, etc. than we are to the leftists in the northern part of the state.  Lots of rural territory, lots of hunting, etc. here than in shitholes like Newark where they're all mixed together living like pigs where gun control laws are needed moreso than down here.
States provide a buffer. The Constitution doesn't allocate any powers to local governments, just to the federal government (very little power), the states, and the people.

New Jersey is a home rule state, so the state has already delegated a lot of that responsibility to municipal governments (and counties to some degree, but they're the red-headed stepchildren of government tiers, and only have a few quirky responsibilities). Other states are more centralized, some much more so. This is typically defined in their constitutions.

You forgot to mention the nuclear power plants. Everyone from the Pine Barrens or further south glows in the dark. :)

It would help if Jersey were a shall issue state.  I don't know any other state that is ridiculous about it.  First - I gotta apply to get an ID card before I can even consider buying a gun - which can take up to 6 months. Now, I then gotta buy a separate permit for each individual handgun?!?!  I then have to go and fill out the NJ background check (which takes up to 12 days rather than 20 mins like everywhere else in the country) - after I've already had two sets of background checks (one for the ID card, and a second one for the handgun permit).  At any point in the process, it can be stopped dead in it's tracks - even if the background checks come back clear - based on the whim of the local police chief or the Staties. Not only that, but you give up several constitutional protections to even apply to begin with. But hey, at least there is no limit on the number of antique cannons you can obtain once you have your ID card...

Greetings!

My friend, you are living under a Communist tyranny. All of those stupid bureaucratic hoops to ump through, all of the restrictions, all of it--is unconstitutional, and an expression of fucking evil tyranny.

If you were to go to a Constitutional State, like where I live, and have zero restrictions. No hoops. The sheriff or police have no authority to tell me what firearms I can or can't have. It doesn't take days, weeks, or months to get any firearm that you want. It takes precisely about 20 minutes. That's it.

And, the selection. Gun stores here are *EQUIPPED*.

My state has it in the state constitution that every man can have weapons, and anyone can open carry or conceal carry, as YOU choose, no special permits required. Just like our Constitution intended.

The true freedom is so pure here, you would laugh with joy after taking a trip to a gun store, and arming up with all the guns you want, all the magazines you want, and all the ammunition you want.

Fuck the Communist Tyrant states! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Oh, I know. When I was stationed in Idaho, I walked into a drugstore and came out rifle in hand.  Getting in Jersey isn't permanent - retirement is going to be in a more agreeable state that also has no state income tax (and that doesn't tax pensions).
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: SHARK on November 23, 2021, 02:47:42 PM

At this point, I'd whole-heartedly support neighborhood militias standing a post.  It doesn't matter what skin color, religion, etc. - good people of every background are sick of this shit.  You could have a group consisting of a white truck driver, a black accountant, a hispanic pharmacist, an Indian gas station owner, and a Korean plumber patrolling with rifles and some asshole would call them racists for turning rioters attacking them into swiss cheese...
States could support that. Militias are traditionally under the authority of the states, but a couple of laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War and then in the first years of the 20th century that federalized recruitment and then financing. But you could make a strong argument those laws are constitutionally illegitimate, and push the power to raise militias back to the local level. The hitch, of course, is very few of the places that went up in flames in 2020 are politically aligned in that direction.

States don't need to support it - they just need to get out of the way.  Local is where it is.  You're always more vested in your neighbors than some asshole from halfway across the state.  Here in Jersey, those of us in the southern part of the state are closer in values to folks from WV, TN, upstate ME, northern CA, TX, etc. than we are to the leftists in the northern part of the state.  Lots of rural territory, lots of hunting, etc. here than in shitholes like Newark where they're all mixed together living like pigs where gun control laws are needed moreso than down here.
States provide a buffer. The Constitution doesn't allocate any powers to local governments, just to the federal government (very little power), the states, and the people.

New Jersey is a home rule state, so the state has already delegated a lot of that responsibility to municipal governments (and counties to some degree, but they're the red-headed stepchildren of government tiers, and only have a few quirky responsibilities). Other states are more centralized, some much more so. This is typically defined in their constitutions.

You forgot to mention the nuclear power plants. Everyone from the Pine Barrens or further south glows in the dark. :)

It would help if Jersey were a shall issue state.  I don't know any other state that is ridiculous about it.  First - I gotta apply to get an ID card before I can even consider buying a gun - which can take up to 6 months. Now, I then gotta buy a separate permit for each individual handgun?!?!  I then have to go and fill out the NJ background check (which takes up to 12 days rather than 20 mins like everywhere else in the country) - after I've already had two sets of background checks (one for the ID card, and a second one for the handgun permit).  At any point in the process, it can be stopped dead in it's tracks - even if the background checks come back clear - based on the whim of the local police chief or the Staties. Not only that, but you give up several constitutional protections to even apply to begin with. But hey, at least there is no limit on the number of antique cannons you can obtain once you have your ID card...

Greetings!

My friend, you are living under a Communist tyranny. All of those stupid bureaucratic hoops to ump through, all of the restrictions, all of it--is unconstitutional, and an expression of fucking evil tyranny.

If you were to go to a Constitutional State, like where I live, and have zero restrictions. No hoops. The sheriff or police have no authority to tell me what firearms I can or can't have. It doesn't take days, weeks, or months to get any firearm that you want. It takes precisely about 20 minutes. That's it.

And, the selection. Gun stores here are *EQUIPPED*.

My state has it in the state constitution that every man can have weapons, and anyone can open carry or conceal carry, as YOU choose, no special permits required. Just like our Constitution intended.

The true freedom is so pure here, you would laugh with joy after taking a trip to a gun store, and arming up with all the guns you want, all the magazines you want, and all the ammunition you want.

Fuck the Communist Tyrant states! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Oh, I know. When I was stationed in Idaho, I walked into a drugstore and came out rifle in hand.  Getting in Jersey isn't permanent - retirement is going to be in a more agreeable state that also has no state income tax (and that doesn't tax pensions).

Greetings!

3Catcircus, you were stationed in Idaho???? *Laughing* Fucking awesome, man! So, yeah, you do know how sweet the freedom is! ;D

I used to live in the People's Republic of California--a fucking Communist Tyrant state--and the first time I went to my local gun store here in Idaho, I was awestruck by the SELECTION. The Communist states really do want you to be helpless, unarmed slaves. Rows and rows of rifles, shotguns, pistols, in models and configurations all declared to be illegal in California. I bought an AR-15. I got the rifle all tricked out with all the goodies. Lots of sweet ammunition. I showed my state Identification, waited 20 minutes for the Federal Background Check to ensure I am not a convicted felon, filled out the simple paperwork, and it was done. I spent about four hours hanging out there though, looking over stuff, and chatting with the gun shop men. One of them, a US Army Ranger veteran, from two or three  tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, personally hooked my rifle up with all the goodies. He showed me his own rifle on his cell phone, where he had the exact same set-up! *Laughing* Sharp guy, outstanding gentleman and patriot.

BCM AR-15 Recce my friend. I have gotten so many exclamations from experts, veterans, and hunters and such that BCM is absolutely *top shelf* in weapons. Rugged, reliable, all made here in America. The weapons are made for warfare, and harsh, battlefield conditions. Primarily to protect you and your family in combat. "Sporting" activities are a distinct secondary priority. Good stuff!

Yeah, it's amazing how these Communist states seize power, and trample our Constitutional rights. They wipe their asses with our Constitution. Fuck them. They are all traitors to our Republic. They do just like the frog in the pot thing. They scheme, and whisper, and plot. Little by little, they seize more and more power, until you are trapped living in a Liberal Communist tyrant shithole.

This is why there is nothing to discuss with these evil fucking traitors. They are evil, disgusting scum. They want everyone to be godless, helpless slaves to the Communist Global super-state. There can be no negotiation, no compromise. There should never even be a whisper of tolerance for these filthy, degenerate animals. Look what they do to politics? Look what they do to the arts? Look what they do to the military? Look how they defund the police? Look how they like to coddle prisoners and criminals? Look how they wreck the economy? Look what the do to our education system? And never forget how they like to disarm us, and make us into helpless slaves!

I hope you are able to move to a better state soon, away from the Communist tyranny. The Liberal shitholes are only going to become more violent and more choked with shit as time goes on. And, remember what rats do when they are trapped together?

They scratch and bite each other, and kill each other in a frenzy. I think we are seeing plenty of that in the Liberal shitholes more and more.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Willmark on November 23, 2021, 03:37:19 PM
I'm waiting to see how many fools who are celebrities or politicians are gonna get sued for defaming Rittenhouse *after* the verdict.

Probably not gonna happen for a while if at all. The guy just barely escaped prison. He's not gonna want to step in court for another year. But I hope he does because they deserve to know actions have consequences.
CNN and MSNBC are about to get hit hard. If I'm him I make them pay as much as possible.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: FelixGamingX1 on November 23, 2021, 10:18:17 PM
I'm waiting to see how many fools who are celebrities or politicians are gonna get sued for defaming Rittenhouse *after* the verdict.

Probably not gonna happen for a while if at all. The guy just barely escaped prison. He's not gonna want to step in court for another year. But I hope he does because they deserve to know actions have consequences.
CNN and MSNBC are about to get hard. If Im him I make them pay as much as possible.

They defamed him in the worst way possible. Even with his acquittal, the trauma will undoubtably stay with him for life.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 23, 2021, 10:40:06 PM
If Rachel Maddow has taught me anything, it is that Kyle is not going to get rich off of suing anyone.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Spinachcat on November 24, 2021, 01:25:44 AM
(https://thelibertydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Trigger-Warning_-Here-Is-the-Image-that-Is-Making-Leftists-Heads-Explode-1200x630.jpg)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 24, 2021, 07:44:12 AM
If Rachel Maddow has taught me anything, it is that Kyle is not going to get rich off of suing anyone.

Go talk to Nick Sandmann and his $250M...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: DocJones on November 24, 2021, 06:58:55 PM
If Rachel Maddow has taught me anything, it is that Kyle is not going to get rich off of suing anyone.
Robert Barnes said the it's very difficult to sue for defamation once you've been indicted for a crime even though you were acquitted.
That's why O.J. Simpson never won a defamation case anyone for calling him a "murderer" despite being acquitted.
And it's damn difficult to sue anyways over someone calling you names like "racist" or "white supremacist".
He said Rittenhouse's mother has a much better case for defamations of her.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 24, 2021, 09:02:42 PM
Has anyone else started watching the Hawkeye series on Disney+? Clint's son--shown in the first episode--bears an odd physical resemblance to Kyle, at least IMO.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 25, 2021, 09:05:24 AM
If Rachel Maddow has taught me anything, it is that Kyle is not going to get rich off of suing anyone.
Robert Barnes said the it's very difficult to sue for defamation once you've been indicted for a crime even though you were acquitted.
That's why O.J. Simpson never won a defamation case anyone for calling him a "murderer" despite being acquitted.
And it's damn difficult to sue anyways over someone calling you names like "racist" or "white supremacist".
He said Rittenhouse's mother has a much better case for defamations of her.

I'm this case it might be easier.  Juries tend to despise public figures defaming private citizens...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 25, 2021, 09:30:06 AM
If Rachel Maddow has taught me anything, it is that Kyle is not going to get rich off of suing anyone.
Robert Barnes said the it's very difficult to sue for defamation once you've been indicted for a crime even though you were acquitted.
That's why O.J. Simpson never won a defamation case anyone for calling him a "murderer" despite being acquitted.
And it's damn difficult to sue anyways over someone calling you names like "racist" or "white supremacist".
He said Rittenhouse's mother has a much better case for defamations of her.
That might've been true a few years back. Now, not so much.

The fact that two of the media organs reached quiet settlements with Sandmann over his lawsuits says a lot.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 11:24:50 AM
I think justice was served correctly... Although, perhaps Ritterhouse should have been charged with a weapons offense, if he was not supposed to be carrying one (well, that's what I heard). But that depends on American law, so I don't know. But he got off on self-defense which was the right thing.

Full blame lies with that Rosenbaum fool. He started the whole thing. The other two, who got shot, probably didn't have the facts and 'thought' they were acting lawfully by defending the crowd. But as it turns out, Ritterhouse was only defending himself, from them.

From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 26, 2021, 11:33:23 AM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 11:39:00 AM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.

I put my own safety far above somebody else's property... Mind you, I also believe in 'hard policing' for law breakers. And if you're out rioting while damaging property the Police should be in there fast and cracking skulls while making arrests. You've got a right to protest peacefully. Go beyond that, then FU!
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 26, 2021, 12:21:10 PM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.

I put my own safety far above somebody else's property... Mind you, I also believe in 'hard policing' for law breakers. And if you're out rioting while damaging property the Police should be in there fast and cracking skulls while making arrests. You've got a right to protest peacefully. Go beyond that, then FU!
I think the police were much better off since they decided not to go into a hostile environment and break skulls, even though they were legally entitled to.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 12:30:04 PM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.

I put my own safety far above somebody else's property... Mind you, I also believe in 'hard policing' for law breakers. And if you're out rioting while damaging property the Police should be in there fast and cracking skulls while making arrests. You've got a right to protest peacefully. Go beyond that, then FU!
I think the police were much better off since they decided not to go into a hostile environment and break skulls, even though they were legally entitled to.

Of course, they are paid professionals.... And that's their job. So, slight difference there. LOL.

But feel free to defend someone else's property. Enjoy! I'll watch it on the TV.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 26, 2021, 12:35:51 PM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.

I put my own safety far above somebody else's property... Mind you, I also believe in 'hard policing' for law breakers. And if you're out rioting while damaging property the Police should be in there fast and cracking skulls while making arrests. You've got a right to protest peacefully. Go beyond that, then FU!
I think the police were much better off since they decided not to go into a hostile environment and break skulls, even though they were legally entitled to.

Of course, they are paid professionals.... And that's their job. So, slight difference there. LOL.

But feel free to defend someone else's property. Enjoy! I'll watch it on the TV.
I think the "it's someone else's job" syndrome is one of the fundamental problems with the modern world. If nobody takes personal responsibility when something bad happens, then adults are turned into the moral equivalents of children.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 12:43:40 PM

I think the "it's someone else's job" syndrome is one of the fundamental problems with the modern world. If nobody takes personal responsibility when something bad happens, then adults are turned into the moral equivalents of children.

It depends on the situation... And that's a rather large topic.

But I'd be asking myself, if I was a citizen of Kenosha, why were the Police not knocking the shit out of some of the worst offenders. They are 'supposed' to be stopping shit like that from happening.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 26, 2021, 12:46:57 PM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.

I put my own safety far above somebody else's property... Mind you, I also believe in 'hard policing' for law breakers. And if you're out rioting while damaging property the Police should be in there fast and cracking skulls while making arrests. You've got a right to protest peacefully. Go beyond that, then FU!
I think the police were much better off since they decided not to go into a hostile environment and break skulls, even though they were legally entitled to.

Of course, they are paid professionals.... And that's their job. So, slight difference there. LOL.

But feel free to defend someone else's property. Enjoy! I'll watch it on the TV.
I think the "it's someone else's job" syndrome is one of the fundamental problems with the modern world. If nobody takes personal responsibility when something bad happens, then adults are turned into the moral equivalents of children.
Modern society requires this to varying degrees. "When something bad happens" it often takes specialized skills to do more good than harm, and this can apply for stopping crime, dealing with medical emergencies, rescuing people from disasters (including structure fires) and more. That's not to say that there aren't some basic steps the average person can take to help others in many situations, but vigilantes are about as beneficial as a bystander trying to to run I to a burning buying to rescue trapped people--it might go off great and make someone look like a hero, but it's far more likely to go tragically wrong.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 12:53:19 PM
it might go off great and make someone look like a hero, but it's far more likely to go tragically wrong.

That would be my general feeling too. Leave it to the 'pros' who are specially trained. There are times when a citizen might have to act, but generally they will have little or no choice (AKA - Terrorism).

As we saw, it only takes one mad prick like Rosenbaum to turn it into a shit show.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: jhkim on November 26, 2021, 12:57:30 PM
I think people should take some responsibility for what happens around them, and I think it's good for people to be involved in making their communities better - including community policing. However, I also think it can be mishandled. There have been good examples of neighborhood watch and even self-defense, but there are also plenty of abuses.

I haven't followed enough of the details to have an opinion in either of the court cases, but do others here have an opinion on the Ahmaud Arbery trial?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 01:06:03 PM
but there are also plenty of abuses.

You call the police... Unless, your life depends on it, and you don't have time to wait for them.

But didn't you guys have a couple of cases where black guys were killed by 'concerned citizens'. With no real justification for doing so? Of course, I don't know the full facts of the cases to be fair - that's just the headline. So, I could be wrong.

But if they did indeed kill someone, without proper justification, then they should be locked away for a very very long time.




Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 26, 2021, 01:07:55 PM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.

I put my own safety far above somebody else's property... Mind you, I also believe in 'hard policing' for law breakers. And if you're out rioting while damaging property the Police should be in there fast and cracking skulls while making arrests. You've got a right to protest peacefully. Go beyond that, then FU!
I think the police were much better off since they decided not to go into a hostile environment and break skulls, even though they were legally entitled to.

Of course, they are paid professionals.... And that's their job. So, slight difference there. LOL.

But feel free to defend someone else's property. Enjoy! I'll watch it on the TV.
I think the "it's someone else's job" syndrome is one of the fundamental problems with the modern world. If nobody takes personal responsibility when something bad happens, then adults are turned into the moral equivalents of children.
Modern society requires this to varying degrees. "When something bad happens" it often takes specialized skills to do more good than harm, and this can apply for stopping crime, dealing with medical emergencies, rescuing people from disasters (including structure fires) and more. That's not to say that there aren't some basic steps the average person can take to help others in many situations, but vigilantes are about as beneficial as a bystander trying to to run I to a burning buying to rescue trapped people--it might go off great and make someone look like a hero, but it's far more likely to go tragically wrong.
It takes time for police, the fire department, and EMS to respond, especially outside a large city. And those first hours, minutes, or even seconds are often critical. If people don't step in to stop or stabilize the situation, things can get worse. There are skills involved, but that's a problem with education not the concept. People should be able to recognize and react calmly to a deadly situation like a shooting, understand the dangers of smoke inhalation, know how to test a door to see if there's a fire on the other side, treat a wound, be able to read a contract, recognize the symptoms of a stroke or heart attack, or help a woman give birth to a baby. These are basic skills, that should be part of the minimum expectation for an independent adult. Yet how many people today have current first aid training, much less the relatively modest commitment required to become an EMT? The lack of these skills, training, and the expectation of responsibility is how we end up with things like school shooters with high body counts, hijackers taking down skyscrapers, women being raped in a train while everyone watches, and more broadly the infantalism of civic responsibility. It's also aided and abetted the growth of a bureaucratic state of experts, who can't be reasonably checked without an informed, engaged, and responsible electorate.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 26, 2021, 01:08:49 PM
But if they did indeed kill someone, without proper justification, then they should be locked away for a very very long time.
Be nice if that applied to police and rioters of both political wings.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 01:14:13 PM
But if they did indeed kill someone, without proper justification, then they should be locked away for a very very long time.
Be nice if that applied to police and rioters of both political wings.

All punishment 'should' be equal under the law...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: HappyDaze on November 26, 2021, 01:16:32 PM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.

I put my own safety far above somebody else's property... Mind you, I also believe in 'hard policing' for law breakers. And if you're out rioting while damaging property the Police should be in there fast and cracking skulls while making arrests. You've got a right to protest peacefully. Go beyond that, then FU!
I think the police were much better off since they decided not to go into a hostile environment and break skulls, even though they were legally entitled to.

Of course, they are paid professionals.... And that's their job. So, slight difference there. LOL.

But feel free to defend someone else's property. Enjoy! I'll watch it on the TV.
I think the "it's someone else's job" syndrome is one of the fundamental problems with the modern world. If nobody takes personal responsibility when something bad happens, then adults are turned into the moral equivalents of children.
Modern society requires this to varying degrees. "When something bad happens" it often takes specialized skills to do more good than harm, and this can apply for stopping crime, dealing with medical emergencies, rescuing people from disasters (including structure fires) and more. That's not to say that there aren't some basic steps the average person can take to help others in many situations, but vigilantes are about as beneficial as a bystander trying to to run I to a burning buying to rescue trapped people--it might go off great and make someone look like a hero, but it's far more likely to go tragically wrong.
It takes time for police, the fire department, and EMS to respond, especially outside a large city. And those first hours, minutes, or even seconds are often critical. If people don't step in to stop or stabilize the situation, things can get worse. There are skills involved, but that's a problem with education not the concept. People should be able to recognize and react calmly to a deadly situation like a shooting, understand the dangers of smoke inhalation, know how to test a door to see if there's a fire on the other side, treat a wound, be able to read a contract, recognize the symptoms of a stroke or heart attack, or help a woman give birth to a baby. These are basic skills, that should be part of the minimum expectation for an independent adult. Yet how many people today have current first aid training, much less the relatively modest commitment required to become an EMT? The lack of these skills, training, and the expectation of responsibility is how we end up with things like school shooters with high body counts, hijackers taking down skyscrapers, women being raped in a train while everyone watches, and more broadly the infantalism of civic responsibility. It's also aided and abetted the growth of a bureaucratic state of experts, who can't be reasonably checked without an informed, engaged, and responsible electorate.
I agree on the basic part of first aid being a necessity,  and I often lament the lack of attention people spend on it. I've seen patients walk in with an open wound dripping blood and I wonder how they got so far without even covering it and applying pressure. However, that "modest commitment to become.an EMT" is deceptive. Becoming an EMT only says you're qualified to start practicing those skills, and without considerable practice, the introduction to those skills can lead to people trying stupid stuff thats well beyond their capabilities. Again, sometimes they get to look like a hero, but more often it goes to shit.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 26, 2021, 01:27:17 PM
I agree on the basic part of first aid being a necessity,  and I often lament the lack of attention people spend on it. I've seen patients walk in with an open wound dripping blood and I wonder how they got so far without even covering it and applying pressure. However, that "modest commitment to become.an EMT" is deceptive. Becoming an EMT only says you're qualified to start practicing those skills, and without considerable practice, the introduction to those skills can lead to people trying stupid stuff thats well beyond their capabilities. Again, sometimes they get to look like a hero, but more often it goes to shit.
From my experience, that seems to be more the cowboy mentality that's often attracted to first responder jobs. I know some fire chiefs who talk about rookies pulling stunts like beating the chief back the station after a call, and how they came down on them like a ton of bricks. (For those who don't know, driving a vehicle with flashing lights isn't a license to floor it and run through lights at will. You're supposed to stop, and then cautiously go through. Getting in an accident helps nobody.) Similar stories from police and paramedics.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: oggsmash on November 26, 2021, 03:25:50 PM
I think people should take some responsibility for what happens around them, and I think it's good for people to be involved in making their communities better - including community policing. However, I also think it can be mishandled. There have been good examples of neighborhood watch and even self-defense, but there are also plenty of abuses.

I haven't followed enough of the details to have an opinion in either of the court cases, but do others here have an opinion on the Ahmaud Arbery trial?

Use the N word on tape and your ass gets convicted no matter what.   To my eyes I thought they should never have chased the dude and confronted him, tracking and calling police seemed a better idea.  That said, the break ins in the community are no longer a problem, and a guy who we know was a complete shit stain on society is removed from the gene pool before he graduated to killing someone, and three racist red necks are in prison.  I would call it a massive societal win.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 26, 2021, 03:50:11 PM
From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
The police in Kenosha are firm believers in your principles.

That's the thing. Under "normal" circumstances, I'd say let the cops handle things. They're trained to, and it helps prevent mob justice and hotheads from doing crazy shit.

But we left "normal" circumstances behind years ago. The police are instructed to let the rioters burn and loot. Civilians are forced to choose whether to hide in their basements until the mob passes over them, or try to protect their livelyhood.

This is going to get worse before it gets better.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 26, 2021, 04:26:28 PM
I think justice was served correctly... Although, perhaps Ritterhouse should have been charged with a weapons offense, if he was not supposed to be carrying one (well, that's what I heard). But that depends on American law, so I don't know. But he got off on self-defense which was the right thing.

Who thinks that he should not have been carrying a weapon?

Even the judge completely dismissed that charge.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 26, 2021, 06:48:00 PM
I think justice was served correctly... Although, perhaps Ritterhouse should have been charged with a weapons offense, if he was not supposed to be carrying one (well, that's what I heard). But that depends on American law, so I don't know. But he got off on self-defense which was the right thing.

Full blame lies with that Rosenbaum fool. He started the whole thing. The other two, who got shot, probably didn't have the facts and 'thought' they were acting lawfully by defending the crowd. But as it turns out, Ritterhouse was only defending himself, from them.

From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
I thought I addressed this but I guess maybe not. To wit: the law was not well written and the exceptions built into it seemed to excuse Rittenhouse (it allows for under-18's to carry long rifles or shotguns). Hence why it was dismissed.

In any case, the fact is that people now are viewing cops with suspicion thanks to them being beholden to political fucknuggets who'd rather let rioters burn down city blocks than be called a racist. And nobody's going to pitch in overtly to help, either, because they don't want the mechanisms of state grinding them up.

Example: https://twitter.com/NYCPBA/status/1463563212843008014

Who wants to interfere, knowing they'll be doxed, harassed, or even assaulted for the high crime of 'harassing a proud black man'? Before you laugh, keep in mind Fenty Floyd was fucking deified by the lunatic left.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: 3catcircus on November 26, 2021, 07:51:26 PM
I think justice was served correctly... Although, perhaps Ritterhouse should have been charged with a weapons offense, if he was not supposed to be carrying one (well, that's what I heard). But that depends on American law, so I don't know. But he got off on self-defense which was the right thing.

Full blame lies with that Rosenbaum fool. He started the whole thing. The other two, who got shot, probably didn't have the facts and 'thought' they were acting lawfully by defending the crowd. But as it turns out, Ritterhouse was only defending himself, from them.

From a 'personal protection' point of view, and as a self-defense instructor. I still maintain that you're always better off not going into a hostile environment, even if you are legally entitled to. Property can be replaced but you can't.
I thought I addressed this but I guess maybe not. To wit: the law was not well written and the exceptions built into it seemed to excuse Rittenhouse (it allows for under-18's to carry long rifles or shotguns). Hence why it was dismissed.

In any case, the fact is that people now are viewing cops with suspicion thanks to them being beholden to political fucknuggets who'd rather let rioters burn down city blocks than be called a racist. And nobody's going to pitch in overtly to help, either, because they don't want the mechanisms of state grinding them up.

Example: https://twitter.com/NYCPBA/status/1463563212843008014

Who wants to interfere, knowing they'll be doxed, harassed, or even assaulted for the high crime of 'harassing a proud black man'? Before you laugh, keep in mind Fenty Floyd was fucking deified by the lunatic left.

Those is why *everyone* who legally can, should be carrying at all times
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 09:48:03 PM
The police are instructed to let the rioters burn and loot.

This is exactly what I'm saying... Serious questions need to be asked why the Police are not doing their fooking job.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
I think justice was served correctly... Although, perhaps Ritterhouse should have been charged with a weapons offense, if he was not supposed to be carrying one (well, that's what I heard). But that depends on American law, so I don't know. But he got off on self-defense which was the right thing.

Who thinks that he should not have been carrying a weapon?

Even the judge completely dismissed that charge.

Did you not read what I said?

"But that depends on American law, so I don't know"

As I said, the reports I was originally hearing were stating that he was 'not legally entitled' to carry a gun. Hence, my I don't know follow up.

Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: FelixGamingX1 on November 26, 2021, 10:09:46 PM
the reports I was originally hearing

That. The fake/misinformed news are all over the place.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on November 26, 2021, 10:12:02 PM
the reports I was originally hearing

That. The fake/misinformed news are all over the place.

Yep... That's why I was being a bit cagey with it. Because, I couldn't verify it. Plus, I don't know anything about American gun laws.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Shasarak on November 26, 2021, 10:25:41 PM
I think justice was served correctly... Although, perhaps Ritterhouse should have been charged with a weapons offense, if he was not supposed to be carrying one (well, that's what I heard). But that depends on American law, so I don't know. But he got off on self-defense which was the right thing.

Who thinks that he should not have been carrying a weapon?

Even the judge completely dismissed that charge.

Did you not read what I said?

"But that depends on American law, so I don't know"

As I said, the reports I was originally hearing were stating that he was 'not legally entitled' to carry a gun. Hence, my I don't know follow up.

What is this, 2020?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Neoplatonist1 on November 27, 2021, 10:18:15 PM
A rich report on Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/must-see-list-colleges-universities-offering-therapy-students-affected-racist-rittenhouse-verdict/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/must-see-list-colleges-universities-offering-therapy-students-affected-racist-rittenhouse-verdict/)
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 29, 2021, 09:20:39 AM
Speaking of Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome: https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/arizona-state-university-students-rally-to-boot-kyle-rittenhouse/

"How dare this evil wypipo intrude into our safe university!"

Of course, the backers are the expected bunch: Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition and the Mexican American student group MEChA de ASU.

So, Marxists, anti-Semitic bigots, multi-cultists, and neo-Aztlaners. Heh.
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Pat on November 29, 2021, 09:45:12 AM
One of the more interesting comments by Rittenhouse is that he hopes to study either nursing or law. That doesn't sound like the profile of militant mass murderer, does it?
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: KingCheops on November 29, 2021, 10:09:26 AM
One of the more interesting comments by Rittenhouse is that he hopes to study either nursing or law. That doesn't sound like the profile of militant mass murderer, does it?

If he'd gone into fine arts then we needed to worry...
Title: Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on November 29, 2021, 12:09:57 PM
One of the more interesting comments by Rittenhouse is that he hopes to study either nursing or law. That doesn't sound like the profile of militant mass murderer, does it?

Bernardine Dohrn was a lawyer -- granted, the Weathermen didn't actually kill anyone except three of their own, but that was as much sheer luck and incompetence as any moral sentiment; they would have had more blood on their hands had they kept going.  And Jane Toppan (born Honora Kelley) was a nurse and serial killer who poisoned her patients. Evil can lurk behind the mask of any vocation.

That said, if I took Dohrn or Toppan as reason enough in themselves to distrust all lawyers and nurses, I'd be operating on a derangement syndrome of my own.  Which is one of the reasons we're seeing such social stress and tsuris in Western culture these days, I think; the Zeitgeist's safetyism demands a perfection that its cynicism can't believe in even if it's occasionally achieved, so nobody feels safe or reassured no matter how protected the stats show them actually to be.