Jump to content

THE KENOSHA/RITTENHOUSE TRIAL


Recommended Posts

 

************************************************************************************
 

I didn't know much about what happened there,

listening to the news I got the impression that the

white boy shot some people that were standing

around minding their own business.  

 

I did not know the race of the people that were

shot, it never really occurred to me.

 

So I was watching the trial, in passing, and saw

a video where one of the men that the boy shot

was about to jump on top of the boy's head. 

 

So, YES, he acted in self-defense.

 

This is the link to the video of him shooting all

three people:

 

GRAPHIC: Video of Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting 3 People

 

So far, from what I have seen, the white boy acted in

self-defense.  And if I were on the jury, my decision

would be that he is not guilty of the murders.

 

I'm not sure about his other charges, so I have not

decided on those yet.

 

From the DAILY MAIL

 

BLM protesters scream at Kyle Rittenhouse 
supporters as tensions flare on courthouse 
steps: Journalists hire armed guards and 
police try to ease 'anxiety' as jury 
deliberations continue

 

BLM Protesters Scream at Kyle Rittenhouse Supporters

 

 

 

************************************************************************************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't heard a reasonable explanation of why that boy was walking around with an AR-15 at a peaceful protest. He showed up and appointed himself vigilante. 


Self-defense is meeting a threat with similar force. Even if somebody went upside his head, there should have been fist-fight. No guns. Nobody would be dead.

 

At least, that's how we settled our differences when I was growing up. All fists. No weapons.

 

Don't get me started on the fake crying he did during his testimony. That boy needs to go to prison. Maybe there he'll learn how to fight.😎

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ProfD said:

 

Self-defense is meeting a threat with similar force. Even if somebody went upside his head, there should have been fist-fight. No guns. Nobody would be dead.

 

 

 

No.  The threat does not have to be similar force.

 

If a mofo breaks into my house, I can shoot to kill, 

I am not required to wait until I see whether he is 

armed with a gun.

 

You are saying you would let somebody jump on

your head while you are down on the ground.  

 

And you could fight off multiple assailants with

a fist fight like a kung fu movie. 

 

In an ideal world perhaps you could do that, but 

have you ever been chased by an angry mob?

 

That mob saw the boy had that assault rifle, so 

why were they messing with him?  

 

Not too smart, were they?

 

The boy supposedly went there to protect lives 

and property, since the police had retreated from 

the burning and looting protesters.

 

He deserves a commendation.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most states do not have laws that allow folks to shoot someone for punching them in the face or stomping on their head. 

 

Again, nobody appointed that boy to protect anything. He wasn't deputized to be law enforcement. He had no business being there with an assault rifle. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

 

Most states do not have laws that allow folks to shoot someone for punching them in the face or stomping on their head. 

 

Again, nobody appointed that boy to protect anything. He wasn't deputized to be law enforcement. He had no business being there with an assault rifle. 😎

 

 

 

Really?  I did not know that.

 

Well, here in The State of Texas, if a mofo 

breaks into your home while you are in it, 

you have the right to shoot him.  Dead.

 

You don’t have to wait and see if he is going 

to punch you or stomp you or rape you or 

anything else.

 

I am not sure where else you can legally shoot 

somebody in Texas, but I am going to research

that as soon as I can.

 

Who appointed BLM to burn, loot, and cause 

a bunch of mayhem?

 

And why is it alright for them to have all kinds

of weapons but the white boy needs to be

deputized?

 

image.gif.e748b9997572db40bf72893da90b115e.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEWSFLASH:

 

Defense has filed for a mistrial

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Castle doctrine  (defense of habitation) allows us to use deadly force in protecting our homes. That's not applicable to this case.

 

The police force is supposed to respond when folks riot, burn and loot. If the situation is beyond police control, the national guard is the next line of defense. 

 

There's no reason for a teenager to pack a weapon and roam the streets. That reads like someone looking for trouble.😎

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ProfD said:

 

Castle doctrine  (defense of habitation) allows us to use deadly force in protecting our homes. That's not applicable to this case.

 

The police force is supposed to respond when folks riot, burn and loot. If the situation is beyond police control, the national guard is the next line of defense. 

 

There's no reason for a teenager to pack a weapon and roam the streets. That reads like someone looking for trouble.😎

 

 

 

Of course defending the home is not applicable 

in this case, I only brought it up because it does 

not matter what your opponent is armed with,

in a self-defense case.

 

Take the Zimmerman vs Trayvon case, Trayvon 

was not armed, but he overpowered Zimmerman 

and had him on the ground.

 

Nobody thinks Trayvon should have been shot, 

but the jury decided in favor of Zimmerman.

 

I don’t know what will happen in the Rittenhouse 

case, but he had a whole mob chasing and

attacking him.  He acted in self-defense.

 

Anyway, I only started this thread because you 

brought this topic up in another discussion.

 

I am curious to see the outcome of the trial and 

I hope there is no rioting in cities all over the 

world.  

 

Riots accomplish nothing other than ruining 

people’s lives.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zimmerman also acted as a vigilante. The police told him to let that situation go but instead he decided to be judge, jury and executioner.  He should be dead too. 

 

Rioting and protesting accomplishes nothing because it hasn't stopped folks from getting killed by racists and vigilantes. 

 

That's why I support everyone having the right to bear arms if that's what it takes to have a fair fight.

 

if the protestors in Kenosha had been strapped that day, we would be having a totally different discussion. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-shooting-gun-b1959467.html

 

So, this dude just gonna show up outside the courthouse armed with a rifle.

 

Police politely ask him for ID and whether or not has a license to carry. He casually says no regarding the license.

 

Well, in Wisconsin it's illegal to have a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. 

 

The sheriff deputies politely escort the dude back to his truck to put his firearm away. 

 

That's why I don't think police need to be defunded. They just have to look like the folks they've been sworn to serve and protect. 😎

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

People should not be showing up at the courthouse with weapons.

And especially not if they don't even have a license.  He should 

have been arrested.

 

They are saying that the longer it takes the jury to deliberate, the 

more likely that Rittenhouse will be convicted, so he may be going 

to jail after all.

 

I hope not, but we shall see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With multiple charges, there's a lot for the jury to deliberate. 

 

Taking their time is a good sign that they are considering all possibilites. 

 

Still, I do not believe he will go to prison.  White supremacists will further hail him a hero either way. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

 

The verdict is in and the defendant has been found not guilty on all charges. 😎

 

 

I missed the announcement this morning.  I'm usually glued to

my television but I was busy with something else this morning.

 

When I turned my TV on and saw the verdict, I was expecting 

to see riots.  I hope that there won't be any riots about this.

 

I was able to rewind to when the verdict was announced and   

saw the judge dismissed all charges, not sure if that dismissal

supersedes the not guilty verdict.

 

I hope that BLM will stop their jury tampering by threatening

violence when verdicts don't go the way they would prefer.  

 

And I wish more people would be informed with facts and 

not speculation and fake news.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mzuri said:

When I turned my TV on and saw the verdict, I was expecting to see riots.  I hope that there won't be any riots about this.

 

I hope that BLM will stop their jury tampering by threatening violence when verdicts don't go the way they would prefer.  

 

And I wish more people would be informed with facts and not speculation and fake news.  

The outcome of this particular case wouldn't have led to riots because the victims were white.  

 

BLM had nothing to do with the jury and/or any real interest in this case no more or less than the rest of us. 

 

It's easier for many people to rely on speculation and fake news than it is to research and fact check credible sources.😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to realize how many people did not know the victims were white.  I always assume the victims are white unless otherwise stated.  In fact I assume everything in this country is white, unless otherwise stated 😉

 

I heard there was a protest, after the verdict, in Brooklyn, NY and maybe a couple of other cities.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/media/donald-trump-meets-kyle-rittenhouse-prosecutorial-misconduct-kenosha-trial

 

It appears the hero treatment is just getting started.

 

Meeting with the former POTUS. Rumored to be offered congressional internships. Money pouring in from white supremacists.

 

I hope this dog whistle doesn't turn into a bullhorn. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/donald-trump-meets-kyle-rittenhouse-prosecutorial-misconduct-kenosha-trial

 

It appears the hero treatment is just getting started.

 

Meeting with the former POTUS. Rumored to be offered congressional internships. Money pouring in from white supremacists.

 

I hope this dog whistle doesn't turn into a bullhorn. 😎

 

 

 

@ProfD

 

 

You crack me up when you call everybody a white supremacist. 

Can't people just send some money to the boy's defense fund 

because they want to help?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mzuri said:

@ProfD

 

You crack me up when you call everybody a white supremacist. 

Can't people just send some money to the boy's defense fund 

because they want to help?

Sure.  If they are non-white, obviously, I wouldn't call them white supremacists.  I would call them d8mn fools.😀

 

This boy has just opended season for white vigilantism in America.

 

@Troy in his optimism wants guns taken off the streets. 

 

In light of recent events...

 

 

image.jpeg.8c4c2a02fd6dbc46f50efd0e4ef2f60a.jpeg

 

 

As @Pioneer1 might post...SHEEEYIT..😀😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

@Troy in his optimism wants guns taken off the streets. 

 

Yeah cause we know this will help.

 

One of the white boys Rittenhouse shot (but managed not to kill) had a loaded Glock. He did gun did not help him.  In fact it is the very reason he was shot...

 

You want a country where it is cool for teenagers to travel across the country and kill protestors if they feel threated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Troy said:

You want a country where it is cool for teenagers to travel across the country and kill protestors if they feel threate(n)ed?

I would rather not have a country where folks feel the need to shoot and kill each other for any reason. 

 

I think getting guns off the street and/or out of folks' hands will be as impossible as eradicating racism. 

 

As long as people feel threatened in a real or imaginary way, they are going to lean on their constitutional right to bear arms. 😎 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

I think getting guns off the street and/or out of folks' hands will be as impossible as eradicating racism. 

 

Impossible?  No we can not get ALL the guns off the street but we can get most of them off the street and reduce the number of murders. 

 

Racism will be eradicated over time.  Indeed it is disappearing as we speak.  It will only last a small portion of of time on this Earth in a hundred years we will look back on the concept of racism the same way we look look at blood letting as a medical practice a flat Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Troy said:

Impossible?  No we can not get ALL the guns off the street but we can get most of them off the street and reduce the number of murders. 

 

Racism will be eradicated over time. 

Agreed. Time solves ALL problems. A willingness to do so by taking action(s) can speed up the process. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Troy said:

 

Impossible?  No we can not get ALL the guns off the street but we can get most of them off the street and reduce the number of murders. 

 

 

 

We have more guns than people, there's something

like 400 million guns in the U.S.

 

So this is an awful problem, especially when some of

those guns are in the hands of criminals, mentally

unstable, drug abusers, etc.

 

It will be difficult getting even a small percentage of

guns off the street, other than the guns that should

be confiscated during stop and frisk, which I hope

is in effect where needed.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Troy said:

Yeah realistically we are not gonna take away the guns already legally purchased, but we can restrict where they can be carried.
 

we helped save lives by restricting where people can smoke. we can do the same with guns 

Lawmakers would have to be willing to make guns a health and safety issue in order to impose restrictions on carry and conceal laws.

 

The politicians will get a major fight from the people who believe in their right to bear arms. 

 

The bigger fight for politicians will be with gun lobbyists who fill their coffers and get them elected. 

 

When it comes to getting things done in America, follow the money and watch their hands. 😎 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

2 hours ago, Troy said:

 

Yeah realistically we are not gonna take away the guns already legally purchased, but we can restrict where they can be carried.
 

we helped save lives by restricting where people can smoke. we can do the same with guns 

 

 

 

Not in Texas.  We don't even need a license to carry our

guns anymore, either openly or concealed.  Anyone over 

the age of 21, unless otherwise prohibited, can carry

where it is not restricted. 

 

But who is going to be checking if someone brings a gun

to a school or hospital. 

 

These nuts around here are going to carry their guns

EVERYWHERE.  

 

I'm amazed that there hasn't been an increase in mass 

shootings.  I think that is because of COVID and once

we get back into full swing, those will start occurring

more frequently.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Mzuri said:

Not in Texas.  We don't even need a license to carry our guns anymore, either openly or concealed. 

Texas is a great example of a place with relaxed gun laws yet all h8ll doesn't seem to be breaking loose. It isn't the epicenter of mass shootings and murders.

 

I believe the reason Texas isn't the wild wild west is because anybody could be packing a gun at any time. That's an equalizer and crime deterrent. 😎

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Another supposed self-defense killing that happened on

5 November is in the news.

 

Why people continue to antagonize someone who has a gun 

is beyond me.

 

There is a video in this article.

 

From the Daily Mail:

 

Horrifying moment gun-wielding Texas man shoots dead partner's

ex during furious child custody row: Cops are yet to lay charges as

lawyer claims killing was 'justifiable homicide'

 

Texas man shoots dead partner's ex during child custody argument

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mzuri said:

Why people continue to antagonize someone who has a gun is beyond me.

Unfortunately, some folks don't believe they're gonna get shot until it's too late. 

 

According to the gun laws in Texas, I believe that shooter will get away with justifiable homicide. 

 

Sadly, the custody battle is over now and the son no longer has a father. 😎

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ProfD said:

Texas is a great example of a place with relaxed gun laws yet all h8ll doesn't seem to be breaking loose


I guess it depends on how one defines “all hell breaking loose.”

 

Check out the stats associated with the  graph. Also do you see a correlation between firearm homicides rates (which the graph shows) and gun laws?

 

18BB94E9-26C5-4BD0-979A-FE677089B7F6.jpeg

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Facebook Stifled Freedom of Speech

 

From The New York Post:

 

“We’ve designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass

murder and are removing posts in support of the

shooter,” Facebook announced barely a week after

the event, as it began a truly epic campaign of

censorship blatantly at odds with its professed

support for free speech.

 

Facebook declared Kyle Rittenhouse guilty, silencing his defense in the court of public opinion

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much distain I have for Rittenhouse, If the Post's reporting about Facebook is true -- that is crazy!

 

I would never take the word of the NY Post (or the Daily Mail) and other tabloids at face value.  If I had the time, I would probe a bit deeper to find a primary source (like Facebook own words) to determine if the Post's headline is actually accurate.

 

I think this is an important subject, but something tells me it is just typical tabloid sensationalism. 

 

#sourcesmatter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Troy said:

 

As much distain I have for Rittenhouse, If the Post's reporting about Facebook is true -- that is crazy!

 

I would never take the word of the NY Post (or the Daily Mail) and other tabloids at face value.  If I had the time, I would probe a bit deeper to find a primary source (like Facebook own words) to determine if the Post's headline is actually accurate.

 

I think this is an important subject, but something tells me it is just typical tabloid sensationalism. 

 

#sourcesmatter

 

 

 

Why do you disdain Rittenhouse?  Do you disdain 

Black people that go around shooting people for 

no reason at all?  He acted in self-defense.

 

And what is wrong with The Daily Mail?  It is one

of the world's oldest newspapers.  Some of their

stories may be considered as gossip, but they are

a serious news organization.

 

The New York Post is older than the The Daily Mail.

 

The description "tabloid" refers to the size of their

pages, and has nothing to do with the content.  

 

The reason that I get most of my news from The 

Daily Mail is because they cover some topics that

cannot easily be found from U.S. sources.

 

I get news from Sky Australia for the same reason. 

 

As to Facebook, they have been censoring for 

awhile now.  I won't go into any conspiracy 

theories but I think that it's pretty bad. 

 

Censoring is also happening at the other social

media corporations.

 

Fauci’s Daughter Works at Twitter Which Suspends People for Disagreeing With Him

 

And ICYMI, we lost our freedom of speech when 

Biden declared that people could not refer to illegal 

aliens as such, and that we could not call COVID-19 

the China/Wuhan virus.  

 

Immigration Agencies Ordered Not To Use Term 'Illegal Alien' Under New Biden Policy

 

Biden 'China Virus' Ban May Foretell National Security-Threatening Policies

 

This crap starts out with the federal agencies 

and then it trickles down on the rest of us.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...