George Floyd Protests

JB16057 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger?

Rosenbaum was verbally threatening to kill Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum lunged after Rittenhouse's gun to do just that. Rosenbaum was a threat to Rittenhouse(and the rest of the world I might add). I feel bad for the last 2 that were shot because maybe they did just assume they were trying to disarm a shooter but none of them should've been there in the first place.

rosenbaum was a threat to the rest of the world?

ok i am done here.

Do you always defend sexual predators that anally rape 5 boys aged 9-11? https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556

I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.

do you always radically over dramatize situations like this? obviously gimme wasn't defending him. saying he was a threat to 7 billion people is ludicrous. 

Like I said, I have no respect for sexual predators.

Rosenbaum was obviously a danger to society and I'm glad there's one less pedophile in the world.

Edit: and for the record, Gimme was defending Rosenbaum.

and that info wasnt known when he was murdered. and even if it was, not being engaged in that act, its irrelevant to the crime against him.

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

lindamarie73 said:

myoung321 said:

Guess I'm just lucky, not once did any my kids ask to be dropped off at a protest...in the next state.. with an AR15... 

But this guys Mom took him?  seriously...wtf?

You do realize his Mom did NOT drop him off in Kenosha?   I know it sounds great for the overall agenda w/ this trail,  but this is a perfect example of Fake news.  Congrats 

Can you please post your source?  I’m trying to find the truth and without sources none of us will know the truth.  Usually when I ask for sources on other forums, far, far right media sources are supplied then removed for containing false information.  How can any of us decide if you can’t supply your source? 

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

There were plenty of armed citizens during all of these 2020 riots but this situation didn't happen anywhere else. I think Rosenbaum saw how young and innocent Rittenhouse looked and chose to go after him because of that. Specifically in Kenosha, there were plenty of much bigger guys with guns that didn't get attacked. That is what bullies do. They go after the weakest of the bunch.

In regards to your first point, the prosecutor said that Rittenhouse should've allowed Rosenbaum to beat him up instead of shooting him. If Rosenbaum had gotten his hands on Rittenhouse and disarmed him, we will never know what would've happened. What we do know is that Rosenbaum was one sick f*ck and had a violent past.

I saw a comment on a youtube video about the case referring to Rittenhouse as being like Forrest Gump's kid, and I couldn't help but laugh at how accurate the description was.  Very childlike, nowhere near savvy enough to navigate a situation like that, and absolutely a sitting target.

In terms of Rosenbaum, it takes a special type of crazy to run after an armed individual, regardless of how young and ineffective they look - not even a gun aimed at him was going to stop him from trying to attack Rittenhouse.  

JB16057 said:

cblock4life said:

lindamarie73 said:

myoung321 said:

Guess I'm just lucky, not once did any my kids ask to be dropped off at a protest...in the next state.. with an AR15... 

But this guys Mom took him?  seriously...wtf?

You do realize his Mom did NOT drop him off in Kenosha?   I know it sounds great for the overall agenda w/ this trail,  but this is a perfect example of Fake news.  Congrats 

Can you please post your source?  I’m trying to find the truth and without sources none of us will know the truth.  Usually when I ask for sources on other forums, far, far right media sources are supplied then removed for containing false information.  How can any of us decide if you can’t supply your source? 

You didn't ask for a source yesterday when there were multiple people stating that his Mom dropped him off in Kenosha but here you go:  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

"Black testified that he, his brother and Rittenhouse had gone to downtown Kenosha on the morning of the shootings to view the aftermath of the previous days’ violence, and that he and Rittenhouse returned to Black’s home before going back downtown about 5 p.m.

Rittenhouse testified that he went to Kenosha with his sister and friends to provide first aid after seeing online pleas for people to come to the city to help protect it.

Rittenhouse testified that after the shootings, Black drove him home in Antioch, where he told his mother and two sisters what happened. He said his mother drove him to the local police station, where he surrendered.

Wendy Rittenhouse told the Chicago Tribune in November that she would have tried to stop her son from going to Kenosha, but she didn’t know where he was or what he was doing."

Here is another article if you want more: https://www.yahoo.com/now/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-183807767.html

Edit: Sorry, it was 2 days ago that it was stated here by multiple people that his Mom drove him....

No I didn’t ask before because Kat just reminded us all to post sources and by the way not everyone on here is a jagoff.  I was being serious, not only because I honestly wanted to know but so that others would see it as well.  

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

There were plenty of armed citizens during all of these 2020 riots but this situation didn't happen anywhere else. I think Rosenbaum saw how young and innocent Rittenhouse looked and chose to go after him because of that. Specifically in Kenosha, there were plenty of much bigger guys with guns that didn't get attacked. That is what bullies do. They go after the weakest of the bunch.

In regards to your first point, the prosecutor said that Rittenhouse should've allowed Rosenbaum to beat him up instead of shooting him. If Rosenbaum had gotten his hands on Rittenhouse and disarmed him, we will never know what would've happened. What we do know is that Rosenbaum was one sick f*ck and had a violent past.

I saw a comment on a youtube video about the case referring to Rittenhouse as being like Forrest Gump's kid, and I couldn't help but laugh at how accurate the description was.  Very childlike, nowhere near savvy enough to navigate a situation like that, and absolutely a sitting target.

In terms of Rosenbaum, it takes a special type of crazy to run after an armed individual, regardless of how young and ineffective they look - not even a gun aimed at him was going to stop him from trying to attack Rittenhouse.  

I'd argue the nowhere near savvy to navigate a situation like that. He only shot the ones that were attacking him. At any point, he could've opened fire on the whole crowd but knew not to do that. He tried running away from Rosenbaum before having to shoot him. He could've shot as soon as Rosenbaum started running at him but he tried to do the right thing. He also had his chance to fire at Grosskreutz but didn't until he was an immediate danger to him. Rittenhouse has some serious self control. Some cops with full training wouldn't be able to navigate a situation like this.

I was more referring to the general situation.  During cross-examination, he didn't really seem to understand how his mere presence whilst carrying a gun would be perceived as extremely antagonistic, and that it would contradict his claims that he was there to administer first aid etc.  He was visually displaying mixed signals, and that made him very vulnerable.

I agree in terms of the other points you made, I think it's fairly clear that he only used force when he realised he had no other way to protect himself.

JB16057 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger?

Rosenbaum was verbally threatening to kill Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum lunged after Rittenhouse's gun to do just that. Rosenbaum was a threat to Rittenhouse(and the rest of the world I might add). I feel bad for the last 2 that were shot because maybe they did just assume they were trying to disarm a shooter but none of them should've been there in the first place.

rosenbaum was a threat to the rest of the world?

ok i am done here.

Do you always defend sexual predators that anally rape 5 boys aged 9-11? https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556

I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.

do you always radically over dramatize situations like this? obviously gimme wasn't defending him. saying he was a threat to 7 billion people is ludicrous. 

Like I said, I have no respect for sexual predators.

Rosenbaum was obviously a danger to society and I'm glad there's one less pedophile in the world.

Edit: and for the record, Gimme was defending Rosenbaum.

electronically rolling his eyes on your claim that rosenbaum was a threat to 7 billion people is defending him?

that's quite a leap ya got there. you should play basketball. 

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

There were plenty of armed citizens during all of these 2020 riots but this situation didn't happen anywhere else. I think Rosenbaum saw how young and innocent Rittenhouse looked and chose to go after him because of that. Specifically in Kenosha, there were plenty of much bigger guys with guns that didn't get attacked. That is what bullies do. They go after the weakest of the bunch.

In regards to your first point, the prosecutor said that Rittenhouse should've allowed Rosenbaum to beat him up instead of shooting him. If Rosenbaum had gotten his hands on Rittenhouse and disarmed him, we will never know what would've happened. What we do know is that Rosenbaum was one sick f*ck and had a violent past.

I saw a comment on a youtube video about the case referring to Rittenhouse as being like Forrest Gump's kid, and I couldn't help but laugh at how accurate the description was.  Very childlike, nowhere near savvy enough to navigate a situation like that, and absolutely a sitting target.

In terms of Rosenbaum, it takes a special type of crazy to run after an armed individual, regardless of how young and ineffective they look - not even a gun aimed at him was going to stop him from trying to attack Rittenhouse.  

I'd argue the nowhere near savvy to navigate a situation like that. He only shot the ones that were attacking him. At any point, he could've opened fire on the whole crowd but knew not to do that. He tried running away from Rosenbaum before having to shoot him. He could've shot as soon as Rosenbaum started running at him but he tried to do the right thing. He also had his chance to fire at Grosskreutz but didn't until he was an immediate danger to him. Rittenhouse has some serious self control. Some cops with full training wouldn't be able to navigate a situation like this.

I was more referring to the general situation.  During cross-examination, he didn't really seem to understand how his mere presence whilst carrying a gun would be perceived as extremely antagonistic, and that it would contradict his claims that he was there to administer first aid etc.  He was visually displaying mixed signals, and that made him very vulnerable.

I agree in terms of the other points you made, I think it's fairly clear that he only used force when he realised he had no other way to protect himself.

He had no right being there. I hope they fry him.

Objectively, he had the same right as anyone else that night.  However, he was essentially a child trying to act as a police officer/fireman/medic using a gun to assert himself in a very volatile situation.  Like I said earlier, I think he thought the fact he was carrying the gun would be enough to stop anyone from messing with him, and hadn't thought what he would do if someone challenged that notion.  This was pretty much evident when he ran from an unarmed guy who showed aggression towards him.  A more powerfully built, confident or world wary individual may have engaged in a fistfight, but this was a baby faced, home-schooled cause he was bullied, kid. 

facepollution said:

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

There were plenty of armed citizens during all of these 2020 riots but this situation didn't happen anywhere else. I think Rosenbaum saw how young and innocent Rittenhouse looked and chose to go after him because of that. Specifically in Kenosha, there were plenty of much bigger guys with guns that didn't get attacked. That is what bullies do. They go after the weakest of the bunch.

In regards to your first point, the prosecutor said that Rittenhouse should've allowed Rosenbaum to beat him up instead of shooting him. If Rosenbaum had gotten his hands on Rittenhouse and disarmed him, we will never know what would've happened. What we do know is that Rosenbaum was one sick f*ck and had a violent past.

I saw a comment on a youtube video about the case referring to Rittenhouse as being like Forrest Gump's kid, and I couldn't help but laugh at how accurate the description was.  Very childlike, nowhere near savvy enough to navigate a situation like that, and absolutely a sitting target.

In terms of Rosenbaum, it takes a special type of crazy to run after an armed individual, regardless of how young and ineffective they look - not even a gun aimed at him was going to stop him from trying to attack Rittenhouse.  

I'd argue the nowhere near savvy to navigate a situation like that. He only shot the ones that were attacking him. At any point, he could've opened fire on the whole crowd but knew not to do that. He tried running away from Rosenbaum before having to shoot him. He could've shot as soon as Rosenbaum started running at him but he tried to do the right thing. He also had his chance to fire at Grosskreutz but didn't until he was an immediate danger to him. Rittenhouse has some serious self control. Some cops with full training wouldn't be able to navigate a situation like this.

I was more referring to the general situation.  During cross-examination, he didn't really seem to understand how his mere presence whilst carrying a gun would be perceived as extremely antagonistic, and that it would contradict his claims that he was there to administer first aid etc.  He was visually displaying mixed signals, and that made him very vulnerable.

I agree in terms of the other points you made, I think it's fairly clear that he only used force when he realised he had no other way to protect himself.

He had no right being there. I hope they fry him.

Objectively, he had the same right as anyone else that night.  However, he was essentially a child trying to act as a police officer/fireman/medic using a gun to assert himself in a very volatile situation.  Like I said earlier, I think he thought the fact he was carrying the gun would be enough to stop anyone from messing with him, and hadn't thought what he would do if someone challenged that notion.  This was pretty much evident when he ran from an unarmed guy who showed aggression towards him.  A more powerfully built, confident or world wary individual may have engaged in a fistfight, but this was a baby faced, home-schooled cause he was bullied, kid. 

Yes I was previously objective but you members who only show up once in a while don’t bother to get to know who you’re responding to.