George Floyd Protests
Comments
-
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.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.
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=172556I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.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.Post edited by JB16057 on0 -
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.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.
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=172556I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.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.
Post edited by mickeyrat on_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
mickeyrat said: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.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.
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=172556I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.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.
I don't really care when it was known. It is as f'ed up as can possibly be. Besides these facts, Rosenbaum was trying to disarm Rittenhouse to kill him and paid for it with his life.
0 -
gimmesometruth27 said:JB16057 said:gimmesometruth27 said:maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
Post edited by facepollution on0 -
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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
0 -
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?0 -
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 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....
Post edited by JB16057 on0 -
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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
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.
0 -
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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
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.
0 -
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 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....
But you know what, fuck it. Apparently you’ve never read my posts or you’d know I stay in the middle, where the truth exists. Sorry I tried to further understand your statement.AND I don’t monitor the days I post so I’m clueless about 2 days ago.Post edited by cblock4life on0 -
mickeyrat said: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.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.
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=172556I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.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.
0 -
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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
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 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.0 -
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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
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 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.0 -
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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
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 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.
0 -
cblock4life said: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 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....
But you know what, fuck it. Apparently you’ve never read my posts or you’d know I stay in the middle, where the truth exists. Sorry I tried to further understand your statement.AND I don’t monitor the days I post so I’m clueless about 2 days ago.There are plenty of things stated here with no source. I believe what she was referring to was articles, pictures or memes. I've read plenty of your posts to see where you think you stand. I apologize. I thought you had been monitoring this because you had posted a few days prior to what I was referring to.For reference, I simply googled, "did Rittenhouse Mom drive him to Kenosha" and these 2 articles popped up. I don't come to this forum to get solid information though because it is clearly full of biasses and it not a reliable source for information. I understand why Kat is asking for sources but there is plenty of BS spouted here that will never get asked for sources or even argued against because it goes "against the narrative".
0 -
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.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.
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=172556I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.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.
that's quite a leap ya got there. you should play basketball.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
JB16057 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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
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 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.
I clearly stated that no one who wasn’t there to peacefully protest shouldn’t have been there so untwist your panties or tighty whities and move on.0 -
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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
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 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.0 -
HughFreakingDillon said: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.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.
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=172556I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for sexual predators.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.
that's quite a leap ya got there. you should play basketball.Instead of arguing the point that what Rittenhouse did was in self defense, gimme ran away because I said Rosenbaum was a threat to the world. I was not referring to each of the 7 billion people but seeing that this guy had no boundaries, he could've done bad things to anyone in the world.0 -
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.
you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.
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.
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 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.Oh and this “child” is a coward POS.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help