Armed BLM protester shot by Kyle Rittenhouse sues police for ‘deputizing’ white nationalist vigilantes

[Rigby5]

No, you don't have the same right to shoot the police. That's the way the law is written. The police do have a right to shoot someone who pulls a gun on them. You also have the right, in most states, to shoot someone who pulls a gun on you.

You can NOT legally write a law giving police more discretion to shoot.
The reason police have any authority at all is because they are working for us, and are subordinate to us.
We give them any authority they have, by us delegating them our authority.
Since we do not have the authority to shoot just from the presence of a weapon, we then can not delegate it to police.

If you think that we are not the source of all legal authority, and that instead legislators are, then you are wrong, because that is not how a democratic republic works.
That would be an authoritarian dictatorship instead.

There is no legal way to give police more authority than any single individual has, in a democratic republic.
The police always have to have less authority because they only work for us, so only have what authority we delegate to them, and not our full legal authority.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
The testimony in court was deliberately confusing to make it seem other than what really happened.
The interviews later correlate with the medical facts, which were that he was NOT aiming at Kyle when Kyle pulled the trigger.
That is an incontrovertible fact.

The interviews later correlate with the medical facts, which were that he was NOT aiming at Kyle when Kyle pulled the trigger.
That is an incontrovertible fact.

You see the mist of blood and biceps in the picture? That's an incontrovertible fact.

 

[Correll]

I watched the vido.
The police were no where near him, and could not have stopped him from rejoining anyone.

Irrelevant to the fact it happened.

Kyle did not leave to help someone.

Support that, or shove it up your ass.

No one needed or wanted Kyle's help.

Irrelevant. HIs intent was to help people.

He was mingling with the crowd with the intent of intimidating them with his rifle.

YOu just made that up. PUlled it right out of your ass, and it is clearly nothing but a pile of shit.

Shooting 5 shots at the first unarmed person is NOT at all self defense.

Sure it is. Rosenbaum publicly stated his intent to kill any of the group that he "caught alone", and he looked like the type of violent madman that could do it, if he got his hands on you.

The riot was caused by the police shooting an unarmed compliant man in the back 7 times at close range, in front of his children.
The entire police department should be burned down and all the police arrested for their crimes.

Here is the deal, lefty. YOu start violence, don't whine like a faggot when the people you attack fight back. It makes you look like a faggot.

Other than that, bring it on, any time you are ready. Rittenhouse is just one guy. Lot's of people in this county will to defend themselves.


How many Rosenbaums you willing to see dead on the street to get your way, lefty?

 

[Rigby5]

So why didn't Rittenhouse have a right to be there?

He was underage, illegally carrying a firearm, being provocative and intimidating, not local, contrary to local public opinion, etc.
He is what one would define as an "outside agitator",

 

[bripat9643]

You can NOT legally write a law giving police more discretion to shoot.

It's already been done. Everyone has the right to shoot someone who pulls a gun on them.

The reason police have any authority at all is because they are working for us, and are subordinate to us.
We give them any authority they have, by us delegating them our authority.

We delegate them to shoot people who pull guns on them.

Since we do not have the authority to shoot just from the presence of a weapon, we then can not delegate it to police.

Not the presence, moron. If they point it at you, you can shoot them. They are threatening your life.

If you think that we are not the source of all legal authority, and that instead legislators are, then you are wrong, because that is not how a democratic republic works.
That would be an authoritarian dictatorship instead.

Where did I claim otherwise?

There is no legal way to give police more authority than any single individual has, in a democratic republic.
The police always have to have less authority because they only work for us, so only have what authority we delegate to them, and not our full legal authority.

We delegate them to shoot people who pull guns on them.

 

[Soupnazi630]

He was underage, illegally carrying a firearm, being provocative and intimidating, not local, contrary to local public opinion, etc.
He is what one would define as an "outside agitator",

He was legally carrying a firearm. He was a member of the community.

He was provoking no one.

 

[Rigby5]

That is a lie.

The government in Kenosha commited no crime.

Sure they did.
They illegal shoot Blacks over a civil warrant.

 

[Rigby5]

He was acquitted because facts and evidence proved he acted in self defense. There was no bias and you are a proven liar

That is ridiculous.
For example, if there was no bias, then how did the illegal possession by a juvenile get dropped?
That was a slam/dunk.

 

[bripat9643]

He was underage, illegally carrying a firearm, being provocative and intimidating, not local, contrary to local public opinion, etc.
He is what one would define as an "outside agitator",

The judge ruled that he was legally in possession of the firearm.

How many times do you have to be told that?

The thugs he shot were the "outside agitators."

Bottom line: Kyle broke no laws. He had every right to be there.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Sure they did.
They illegal shoot Blacks over a civil warrant.

No they did not.

The shooting of Blake was perfectly legal

 

[bripat9643]

That is ridiculous.
For example, if there was no bias, then how did the illegal possession by a juvenile get dropped?
That was a slam/dunk.

Because it was wrong, moron. Kyle legally possessed the firearm.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That is ridiculous.
For example, if there was no bias, then how did the illegal possession by a juvenile get dropped?
That was a slam/dunk.

No it was not.

The law was judged and proven to be too vague to be applied and that was a correct rulong.

This fact was proven to you many times over

 

[Correll]

Wrong.
No one threatened Kyle with a deadly weapon, ever.

You don't need a deadly weapon to kill someone. Plenty of people are beaten to death with bare hands or booted feet. So, that was you talking shit.

So at no time was a deadly response legally justified.

Rosenbaum publicly stated his intent to kill any of that group, he "caught alone". Rittenhouse was fully justified in defending himself from a dangerous madman. Your claim is just you talking shit.

The first person grabbed
That is not a deadly attack, so none of the 5 shots were justified.

For the gun, so indeed, it was completely justified. Your claim is just you talking shit.

The 2nd person threw a skateboard.
That is not a deadly attack, so none of the 6 shots were justified.

Those skateboards are popular with antia rioters because they are certainly heavy enough to be a deadly weapon. YOur claim is just you talking shit.

The third person was a MedTech in uniform, and did not point the pistol at Kyle when Kyle pulled the trigger.
So it was not a deadly threat, and none of the 3 shots fired were justified.

You skipped the part where he pretended to surrender and then pulled the gun and was raising it towards pointing at Rittenhouse, when he was shot.

That was you just talking shit.


You need to decide. Is your position that of a whining cuck of a man, who thinks that any use of force is morally wrong and thus you....somehow still blame Rittenhouse more than his attackers,


Or are you a hardcore, tough, willing solider in the coming Revolution, totally willing to throw down and see your comrade die and you kill and burn and rape in the name of the Worker, or some such bullshit?


Cause, when you try to have it both ways, neither is believable.

 

[Rigby5]

The interviews later correlate with the medical facts, which were that he was NOT aiming at Kyle when Kyle pulled the trigger.
That is an incontrovertible fact.

View attachment 576781

You see the mist of blood and biceps in the picture? That's an incontrovertible fact.

You can easily see that the pistol is in his right arm, the one that got shot, and that the pistol is NOT and could NOT have been pointed at Kyle.
The body of Grosskreutz is perpendicular to Kyle, and he even slightly has his back to Kyle.
So there is absolutely no way that pistol could possibly be aimed or pointed at Kyle.
For the pistol to be aimed at Kyle, it would have to be between Grosskreutz and Kyle at least.
But in the image it is clear it is BEHIND Grosskreutz.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You don't go out of state to a well advertised protest, which heavy arms, in order to defend yourself.
No one else shot anyone but Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse should not have been armed at his age.
The police should have at least done a routine background check on anyone openly carrying.

It was a riot not a protest.

 

[Soupnazi630]

If someone wanted to harm Rittenhouse, all they had to do was wait til he turned around, and they put a shot into his head.
But clearly no one else was shooting except for Rittenhouse.
Therefore, it was all the fault of Rittenhouse.

Wrong.

He was threatened with deadly force and deadly weapons.

his shootings were legal and justified that is fact you cannot challenge

 

[Soupnazi630]

You can easily see that the pistol is in his right arm, the one that got shot, and that the pistol is NOT and could NOT have been pointed at Kyle.
The body of Grosskreutz is perpendicular to Kyle, and he even slightly has his back to Kyle.
So there is absolutely no way that pistol could possibly be aimed or pointed at Kyle.
For the pistol to be aimed at Kyle, it would have to be between Grosskreutz and Kyle at least.
But in the image it is clear it is BEHIND Grosskreutz.

You are a liar.

The image clearly and irrefutably shows it pointed at rittenhouse.

 

[Rigby5]

Irrelevant to the fact it happened.



Support that, or shove it up your ass.




Irrelevant. HIs intent was to help people.



YOu just made that up. PUlled it right out of your ass, and it is clearly nothing but a pile of shit.



Sure it is. Rosenbaum publicly stated his intent to kill any of the group that he "caught alone", and he looked like the type of violent madman that could do it, if he got his hands on you.



Here is the deal, lefty. YOu start violence, don't whine like a faggot when the people you attack fight back. It makes you look like a faggot.

Other than that, bring it on, any time you are ready. Rittenhouse is just one guy. Lot's of people in this county will to defend themselves.


How many Rosenbaums you willing to see dead on the street to get your way, lefty?

Obviously Kyle was not intimidated by anything Rosenbaum may have said, because we went around alone anyway.
That is a deliberate provocation.
Starting violence without a weapon, does not allow for anyone to escalate to the use of a weapon.

Just like with the Boston Tea Party, the corrupt government has to be removed and replaced.
The majority will not stand for police shooting innocent people.
Those who support the criminal government are a fascist minority who will lose.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Obviously Kyle was not intimidated by anything Rosenbaum may have said, because we went around alone anyway.
That is a deliberate provocation.
Starting violence without a weapon, does not allow for anyone to escalate to the use of a weapon.

Just like with the Boston Tea Party, the corrupt government has to be removed and replaced.
The majority will not stand for police shooting innocent people.
Those who support the criminal government are a fascist minority who will lose.

No innocent people were shot at Kenosha

No running around alone is not provocation. Rosenbaum escelated not Ritrenhouse

 

[Rigby5]

It's already been done. Everyone has the right to shoot someone who pulls a gun on them.



We delegate them to shoot people who pull guns on them.



Not the presence, moron. If they point it at you, you can shoot them. They are threatening your life.



Where did I claim otherwise?



We delegate them to shoot people who pull guns on them.

That is silly.
If we were to delegate the authority for police to shoot, then we would have to already have that right ourselves.
Which means we can legally shoot cops pointing guns at us.
You can't have it both ways.
Either no one can shoot, or everyone can.
Police as shooting when there is no gun at all, but they just thought there might be one.
That is clearly illegal.