Dems want Laws changed after Rittenhouse shootings. Are vigilantes the answer? (Poll)

[occupied]

Link to that definition of "vigilante" please, otherwise you are lying. Got one? No?

Thanks for playing. Next time look up words you don't know, duh, otherwise you just look uneducated/stupid.

Would your right wing vigilantes stop each other from breaking the law? I find it unlikely. If these vigilantes are out there for the opportunity to murder leftists for your vicarious amusement they are terrorists.

 

[BluesLegend]

Would your right wing vigilantes stop each other from breaking the law? I find it unlikely. If these vigilantes are out there for the opportunity to murder leftists for your vicarious amusement they are terrorists.

 

[BluesLegend]

The posse comitatus, in common law, is a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a sheriff – to suppress lawlessness. That's how we legally deal with the lawless Dems.

 

[easyt65]

So, Democrsts and snowflakes are calling Americans - forced to provide their own defense since Democrats want police gone and support domestic terrorists - 'vigilante' now?

Democrats created 'Rittenhouse'.

 

[occupied]

The posse comitatus, in common law, is a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a sheriff – to suppress lawlessness. That's how we legally deal with the lawless Dems.

There is no legal way to murder people for their beliefs. I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would risk life and limb to protect some corporate storefront in a city they do not live in except as an opportunity to kill someone and maybe get away with it.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Of course Democrats want to change the laws that allow Americans to defend themselves....

1st they wanted to defund the police, replace them with psychiatrists,nusemaids, and nannies...
- Ane we have all seen how that has failed drastically....multiple cars pull-up, 80peopleclear out a store in 3 minutes.....Chicago setting the all-time shooting / homicide record and they don't bat an eye...

Now they want to eliminate Americans' right to protect them selves.
- a couple gets arrested, their guns taken, for standing on their own property holding their legally owned guns, warning off domestic terrorists who threatened to kill them and burn down their house after trespassing onto their land

- Now criminal dumbasses calling Rittenhouse a 'White supremacist' because they believe all the bullshit and lies the fake news propaganda - pushing devisive libtards have been and are STILL reporting!


At this point Rittenhouse NEEDS TO - almost HAS TO - sue the ever-loving shit out of NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC...

Don’t forget Skidmark *Joe!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Anyone else want to sacrifice their lives and freedom to protect some corporate storefront from damage?

how are people looting if they have no weapons?

 

[buckeye45_73]

There is no legal way to murder people for their beliefs. I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would risk life and limb to protect some corporate storefront in a city they do not live in except as an opportunity to kill someone and maybe get away with it.

Well you have no morals or principals.......what about people's homes? Just allow them to rape someone's wife? kids?


I know you love criminals but that's pretty extreme

 

[kyzr]

Would your right wing vigilantes stop each other from breaking the law? I find it unlikely. If these vigilantes are out there for the opportunity to murder leftists for your vicarious amusement they are terrorists.

So you lose on the definition of "vigilante" so now you "double-down" on the wrong definition of "vigilante"??

READ THE FUCKING DICTIONARY MORON.

Here it is again:
A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighborhood.
(See, you're wrong again. Keep trying to redefine "vigilante" and I'll keep showing you're wrong)

 

[occupied]

So you lose on the definition of "vigilante" so now you "double-down" on the wrong definition of "vigilante"??

READ THE FUCKING DICTIONARY MORON.

Here it is again:
A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighborhood.
(See, you're wrong again. Keep trying to redefine "vigilante" and I'll keep showing you're wrong)

The Taliban are vigilantes by your definition. Their idea of the law is not the same as yours to be sure but they have taken it upon themselves to impose order upon their communities. They also cover for each other in their personal disregard for the "laws" they enforce. People who do not feel bound by the law cannot be trusted to enforce it.

 

[alang1216]

Democrats on the Sunday morning shows, as well as many others want laws changed so that law abiding citizens can't defend themselves from criminals.
In SF gangs of looters emptied Louis Vitton and other high-end stores. What if Louis hired a few armed vigilantes?
In Philadelphia, a mom and baby were killed coming home from a baby shower,
WHERE IS THE DEMOCRAT'S OUTRAGE???????????????.

Pregnant Woman Shot, Killed Returning Home From Her Baby Shower, Philadelphia Police Say

A pregnant woman is dead after a shooting in the Crescentville section of Philadelphia.

philadelphia.cbslocal.com

NYC Mayor DeBlasio said the Rittenhouse verdict "sends a horrible message"...
De Blasio joins NY’s left in raging over Kyle Rittenhouse — as NYPD on alert for potential unrest
“This verdict is disgusting and it sends a horrible message to this country. Where is the justice in this,” de Blasio tweeted after the 18-year-old defendant was cleared of all charges in the deaths of two men and the wounding of a third during racially charged violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020."

Biden, Adams, Sharpton and others weigh in on Rittenhouse verdict

The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse in a Kenosha, Wis., courtroom sparked plenty of opinions on Friday — divided in the same way the country is. The baby-faced gunman, who killed two men and wounded a third at a Black Lives Matter protest last year, was hailed as a hero in right-wing circles...

news.yahoo.com

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted, “It’s time to dismantle systemic racism & fundamentally transform our broken justice system.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom worried about the precedent set by the Rittenhouse case.
“America today: you can break the law, carry around weapons built for a military, shoot and kill people, and get away with it,” the Democrat tweeted. “That’s the message we’ve just sent to armed vigilantes across the nation.”


What if neighborhoods organized vigilantes to shoot criminals in their neighborhoods, today's version of a "well regulated militia"? Would urban gang shootings stop?

Lets take a poll on what should happen when pols and DAs stop police from arresting and prosecuting violent criminals.

Should vigilantes fill the gap and protect neighborhoods from criminals?

[The OP and thread title are now better aligned, sorry for the closure of the first thread discussion]

Recap: Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse while pointing a handgun at him. Rittenhouse shot him once in the right arm. Rittenhouse had already killed two people, one right in front of Grosskreutz.

Question: if Grosskreutz had shot and killed Rittenhouse before (or after) being shot by Rittenhouse, would that have been self defense? Can two opposing people both claim self defense in this scenario?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ever hear of a dictionary stupid? Duh.

vigilante

vĭj″ə-lăn′tē

noun​

1. A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.

^^^
Note to those who bought into the "they were trying to disarm an active shooter" BS

 

[g5000]

Most of those burned out businesses in Kenosha were mom and pop businesses.

And most of them were black businesses and homes.

 

[kyzr]

The Taliban are vigilantes by your definition. Their idea of the law is not the same as yours to be sure but they have taken it upon themselves to impose order upon their communities. They also cover for each other in their personal disregard for the "laws" they enforce. People who do not feel bound by the law cannot be trusted to enforce it.

LOL!! This is the USA in 2021. The Taliban are another stupid red herring you're trying to throw.
Sorry, but that's a dumb argument. US Law isn't Sharia Law, duh. The Taliban are religious fanatics, not regular folks organizing to protect life and property from criminals, by upholding US Law in the absence of police.

 

[kyzr]

Recap: Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse while pointing a handgun at him. Rittenhouse shot him once in the right arm. Rittenhouse had already killed two people, one right in front of Grosskreutz.

Question: if Grosskreutz had shot and killed Rittenhouse before (or after) being shot by Rittenhouse, would that have been self defense? Can two opposing people both claim self defense in this scenario?

1. If Gaige shot Kyle without being in danger that's murder. There is no self-defense element, its murder.

2. If Gaige shot kyle after being shot by Kyle, that sounds like self-defense to me. The problem is when two armed guys square off, its a straight up mano-a-mano "gunfight".

 

[alang1216]

1. If Gaige shot Kyle without being in danger that's murder. There is no self-defense element, its murder.

Being in danger is not necessary, only believing you are matters, that is the problem with self-defense. If Gaige shot Kyle and claimed self-defense how could the State prove that he didn't feel threatened?

 

[JoeB131]

Democrats on the Sunday morning shows, as well as many others want laws changed so that law abiding citizens can't defend themselves from criminals.
In SF gangs of looters emptied Louis Vitton and other high-end stores. What if Louis hired a few armed vigilantes?
In Philadelphia, a mom and baby were killed coming home from a baby shower,
WHERE IS THE DEMOCRAT'S OUTRAGE???????????????.

To answer your questions in order.

If Louis Vitton hired armed thugs, they'd be paying out millions to the family of people they shoot instead of a few hundred for merch that was stolen (and they get insurance for). So that's why they don't do it.

A pregnant woman (not a mom and a baby) were shot. No one is going to claim that the guy who shot them was a hero or spend millions hiring lawyers with no ethics to defend him. This assumes this was a robbery and not some kind of personal motive.

Of course, sensible people should be concerned about the Rittenhouse verdict because it allows people to commit murder after institigating confrontations. All you have to do is claim you felt "threatened".

 

[JoeB131]

1. If Gaige shot Kyle without being in danger that's murder. There is no self-defense element, its murder.

Actually, if Gaige had shot Kyle, he would have had the affirmative defense that Kyle had already murdered two other people.

 

[Turtlesoup]

That's pretty much the entire rationale the Klan used to justify their vigilante shit. If you no longer believe in law and order then you have finally abandoned the last thing that made "conservatives" actually conservative.

Oh look at you----trying to smear the point by referencing the clan. How did that work out for you? My point remains Dead criminals don't attack others---and it has nothing to do with the klan. I believe in right and wrong----allowing criminals rights to be free to attack is wrong---not fighting them off and allowing them to attack others is also wrong.

Oh and fyi, our founders intended the violent criminals to be killed off by the state or by the people---not given rights knowing and allowing them to continue to vicimize.

 

[Care4all]

It matters if you believe in karma.

I believe in God. Vengeance is His.... Not mine, not yours or Karma's....no matter what she thinks!!!