Anywho , That those who were shot were not white liberals hijacking a black movement protest\ or a white peodophile\ criminal on the loot/riot. Or they were
BLM isn't a black movement, nor do you need to be black to protest someone being shot by the police. That argument is utter nonsense. Exactly what sins the victims committed are entirely irrelevant.
If you are there to loot and pillage and take advantage of a situation and use a black protest for your own selfish needs then I have no sympathy
That's nice and all, but has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the points being discussed. Your sympathy isn't required or, indeed, relevant.
And what is your relevant point ?. Or is your virtuous opinion THAT important? #AskinForAMotherOfADeadChild
You know, just scrolled back through all your posts on this thread and belatedly realised you've said absolutely nothing of any substance, unlike literally everyone else. My mistake, shouldn't have wasted my time.
No he didn't go to act as a vigilante. He went to act as a medic, which was confirmed by two prosecution witnesses and three defence witnesses. He only raised his gun and fired when under attack. If you do not think so, check out the videos that the jury watched. And if you have ever said a ref needs shooting, do you think that should be used against you to show your murderous tendencies? The judge explained exactly why he didn't allow that evidence, and anyone who has ever said they could kill someone in a non confrontational moment will understand why. And making the argument that child rapist "if I get you alone I will kill you' Joseph Rosenbaum couldn't possibly have caused Rittenhouse serious bodily harm, after chasing him forty yards and grabbing his gun, purely because he didn't have a gun in his hand (until grapping Rittenhouse's), then I think it is fair that the jury, in possession of all the facts, chose to find Rittenhouse not guilty after three days deliberation. It is not that long ago that a Watford fan was nearly killed by an unarmed Wolves fan. If you think the Watford fan would have been wrong to defend himself please say. Should Rittenhouse have waited to see how hard the charging Rosenbaum could clout him before defending himself. It is ridiculous that any of these people were there. That is the issue. Even in the most stupid of situations, a person is permitted to defend themselves.
No they weren't. They were violent assailants who attacked Rittenhouse without provocation. The demonstrations ended at sunset, and the incidents occurred around midnight. What was going on was a riot. Or are people still trying to say 'mostly peaceful demonstrations'... https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/01/kenosha-wisconsin-riots-2-million-city-owned-property-damage/ It is difficult to take such an argument seriously. As the last person to get shot, Gaige Grosskreutz, said, Rittenhouse was there treating injured rioters. He also said that Rittenhouse didn't shoot until he, Grosskreutz, had pointed his glock pistol at his head. As practically every witness said, they had no problem with the peaceful protest, it was the senseless destruction of the city that they wanted to prevent. The businesses being protected were owned by Indian Asians who hugged and thanked Rittenhouse and others for agreeing to help them. They also thanked Rittenhouse for offering to do fund raising for them. There was no racial element to this. If you are going to insist there was, please provide some evidence for doing so.
This is how populist right wing extremism, the obsessive hatred of left wing/liberal people will take otherwise reasonable people like you down the rabbit hole until you are excusing the shooting.
Fair comment to make. It doesn't make him a murderer though. It doesn't mean he isn't entitled to defend himself when people attack him. And if people were prepared to attack him, how serious does it suggest he was taken by the people that did so. The gun was legal, he was permitted to carry it, and to defend himself. He didn't fire on anyone until they chose to attack him. Every one of them, except Grosskreutz (who feigned surrender before pointing his glock), came at him from behind. Rosenbaum's last words before lunging for Rittenhouse's gun, after chasing him forty yards at full pelt, were 'f*** you'. At least people have dropped the White supremacist and crossed state lines with a gun he wasn't permitted to carry canards. Grosskreutz travelled sixty miles to end up chasing Rittenhouse with an illegally possessed glock pistol, and point it at his head. Is anyone going to criticise him? Nah, didn't think so. Everything the Liberal left are accusing Rittenhouse of is true of Grosskreutz. Everything. Yet they call him a hero, and say Rittenhouse should not have defended himself from him.
To sum up. According to left 'liberals', it is OK to assault a stupid kid, but it isn't OK for a kid to defend himself from stupid and agressive adults.
Seriously, where is the right wing extremism in what Davey said? He pointed out that people are persecuting an individual because of politics, trumping up fake charges of racism and aggression that there is no evidence of. A person's civil rights are supposedly the concern of the liberal left. Why is it different here? He highlighted that far more aggressive acts against innocent people, many if whom will be black, are taking place every day. Again, something the liberal left would normally be very vocal about. But here we see it being dismissed as extreme right wing politicising of reality. It doesn't make sense, unless you consider that the liberal left is now just a grifting sham of a political mess.
How is it OK for a child to take a semi automatic rifle on to any street? When he was treating people medically what was he going to do with the rifle? I wonder if his parents are proud knowing that he killed two people and has probably painted a target on his own back for the rest of his life.
Didn't they 'drop' the weapons charges last week? Does this mean they're going to do him for 'transporting an illegal weapon across state lines' (or whatever)?
Good point. I wonder why it wasn't mentioned in the trial? Oh yeah, because he didn't cross state lines with the gun, and the charges were dropped because it was perfectly legal for him to posess a long barrelled rifle. One of the best bits of the trial was when the prosecution were insisting it was a short barrelled rifle, which would have been illegal, only to be offered a ruler and told to measure it, at which point, without doing so, they said "no objection" to dropping the charge. Pretty sure that all the people who only knew this one 'fact' will be quite happy with being so misinformed about the case and lied to by the media this whole time. The response to finding out their one fact was a lie more likely to be, "ho hum, let's find another fact." I can pretty much guarantee that the top three 'facts' that anyone knows about the case, and probably more, are totally incorrect.
Of course it isn’t ok, it’s very far from it and symptomatic of a society where rationality runs a poor second to permissiveness towards white people and their guns. The verdict was inevitable, but obviously quite wrong. He travelled with his gun for no good reason and sought conflict. When he got it the law (that pleads on behalf of all gun ownership) allows him to justify armed self defence. There is no reason to respect this verdict any more than the ones reached for OJ or Michael Jackson. Like them he was well-resourced, the right in America queuing up to fund his defence. There’s the privilege, right there.
Good argument. Of course it applies equally to the people who attacked Rittenhouse, all of whom, excluding Huber, travelled considerably further than Rittenhouse had in order to riot in a town they didn’t know from Adam. Grosskreutz even travelled with an illegal fire arm, which he drew and pointed at Rittenhouse, even though he knew the teenager was going to hand himself in to the police when he was knocked to the floor. Grosskreutz faces no charges. But at least there is some exceptance here that, as much as we may all disapprove of US law, Rittenhouse did nothing illegal, and was permitted to respond in the manner he did when he was attacked unprovoked. We have come a long way.
Couldn’t believe it when I saw this atrocious rubbish posing as news… “Teen who shot three Black men”, and this was their headline three days ago!! Don’t tell me they didn’t know they were all white. It’s been common knowledge to anyone who wanted to know the truth of it since the night it happened. But headlines like this are the reason why some people, not satisfied with being lied to about guns being taken across state lines, are having to feign disbelief when the truth of the matter is being laid bare in front of them. The Indie also had to apologise and edit an article in which they described Jacob Blake as being shot dead. Just race bating grifter media, and yet there are millions lapping it up, who still think Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal gun, sprayed 60 odd shots into a crowd, chased after innocent protesting angels, killed two black men and injured another. Can’t describe anyone as gullible. They are very happy to take it as fact.
Here’s one of the wilfully ignorant sheep that perpetuate beliefs that have been known by the prosecution to be made up rubbish since the day after the riots… https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-doj-review-b1961147.html?amp Jerry Nadler is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He is a long serving Democrat representative, and is the guy who said that antifa violence in Portland and other parts of the US (which caused billions of dollars worth of damage) was a myth. Here’s what the Indie reported him saying, complete with totally disproven BS about crossing state lines canard… “Mr Nadler tweeted after Mr Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges that the verdict was a “miscarriage of justice” that “sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ.” “Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest,” argued the senior House Democrat.” That is one of the most highly ranked Democrats in the country either perpetuating a complete lie to condemn Rittenhouse, or who is so ignorant of reality that he doesn’t care that what he says is utter rubbish fed to him on a spoon. What a disgusting group of people these Democrats are and the media that facilitate them. The Indie knows he is spreading a false narrative, but makes no attempt to correct it. “We’re just reporting what he said.” That is not journalism.
Man kills five and injured 40 by driving his car through a Christmas parade. Most of the fatalities are from a dance group called the Dancing Grannies. This happened about 20 miles from Kenosha, apparently. The guy didn’t get shot as he was arrested. Remember, five dead and 40 injured. One person died at Charlottesville. These people were innocents, peacefully celebrating Christmas. The chap who did it is a known felon with social media that indicates his support for BLM. People are holding back at the moment, but if there is no other motivation found for the atrocity, then terrorism must be considered a possibility. I’m not going to say what colour the perpetrator is, because it isn’t really necessary to know in such a tragedy. Just to say that neither are the liberal press saying what colour he is, from which you can at least narrow it down to him not being white. There’s the privilege for you, right there. And the left are already saying it is Karma for the Rittenhouse acquittal. Despite none of the dead or injured having served on the jury. What disgusting detestable people they are.
Ooh dear. This is another horrible one. A 15 year old girl was on patrol with her father carrying an AR15, in Kenosha, protecting BLM protesters who were there to object to the Rittenhouse verdict. They had come from Chicago to do so, which is around 60 miles away, over state lines. In other words, she carried her gun over state lines to shoot people in self defense should she be attacked, or should she see someone being attacked. Some irony there. I wonder if she would have been criticised for defending herself if she was assaulted by a 36 year old white child rapist? I guess we would probably be hearing the exact same Rittenhouse arguments being made by the left that they are there to protest about now. The greater irony is, that if she had to defend herself, the people saying Rittenhouse had a right to self defense would equally be saying she had a right to it as well. More irony. They were apparently 'patrolling' some locations in Kenosha on the night of the riot at which Rittenhouse defended himself, at which time the daughter must have been fifteen, possibly 14 (the age at which her father first let her carry a gun). There is no indication whether she was carrying her AR15 on that occasion. All sounds a bit too incredible to be true, but that is what is being reported here...
I'm not sure what point you are making both situations are wrong on every level for me but then again I'm not an American.
You haven't been reading what I have been saying. I don't think the Rittenhouse situation is a good one. I am just pointing out that it is being used, with generous dollops, to achieve a political objective. I think he is as stupid as this 16 year old girl who has armed herself and travelled to Kenosha. But that doesn't mean he should be sacrificed to lefties who do not want the law to be applied as it exists in his case, simply because he is white. The same laws would protect the 16 year old black girl if she had to defend herself.
All three guys involved in the Ahmaud Arbury shooting found guilty. No privilege here. The jury considered the evidence, and gave a verdict. Just like in the Rittenhouse case. All the right wing sources I use agree that the decision was fair, and all of them were swayed to that view during the trial, and because of the evidence presented. This time a few month ago, to a man, they were saying not guilty. There appears to be no rioting or protesting over these three men being found guilty. N.B. All my right wing US sources are ‘black’ Americans. I am not mentioning colour regarding this case, specifically because I will be enjoying the awkwardness of people not knowing whether to be virtuously angry, or sanctimoniously forthright until they know which side is which. Delicious.
Seriously? That's akin to saying the Earth is flat when presented with a photo taken from orbit. No wonder ZZ f***ed off away from this place.
What do you mean? Can’t tell from this what POV you are taking. As for ZZ, he’s left the entire forum, including the football bits and tittle tattle. He loved a polarised argument, polarised them himself. So really don’t go down that road in your haste to take a swipe at this part of the forum. His reasons for going will almost certainly be personal.
Well it was wrong. Of course it was. You can come to that view without ignoring that in US law such a decision can be made. That’s the legal system that could acquit OJ. The US laws are abhorrent and wrong in respect of gun carrying. If an individual here went along to a football match, with a hammer, after having spoken about protecting businesses from hooligans and hammered two people to death our legal system would simply say he had no right to take an offensive weapon with him and that doing so was premeditation. There is no plea of self defence for weaponry here, unless you are attacked at home. Only the US’s sophistry towards gun carrying absolves this crime. Anyone with any decency knows that. Notwithstanding the procedural errors Arakel mentions, yes the jury could make that decision in the US and that’s ****ed up.
But it is in America with American Laws and American values, (which I agree are completely and utterly screwed), and not the UK. In America, with an all American jury, he was found unanimously not guilty. I don't get how this is not being "got" over here. Just because we don't agree with gun laws doesn't mean the jury got it wrong.
