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

[Bob Blaylock]

The problem is that complete waste of life assholes like CRAPitus and Incel Joe are on the side of subhuman criminal pieces of shit, and against that of actual human beings (or even Orcs). They stand with their own kind, see nothing wrong with their won kind committing acts of theft, violence, and destruction, and see everything as wrong with anyone trying to oppose such behavior.

They have never been attacked so they don’t understand the importance of the right of self defense

More likely, they are among those who want to do the attacking.

They come across to me as embodying what I have often said, and heard from others, about those who desperately want to deny the right of law-abiding human beings the right to possess arms—that this desire stems from a desire or intent to do that which would give law-abiding citizens just cause to use those arms.

 

[jc456]

Sounds like a vigilante to me. Kyle had already killed two unarmed people, showing he was a danger to others.

only you then, the jury said nope!!!! why didn't you answer why Rosenbaum chased him?

 

[alang1216]

Correction, he had already killed two assailants as proven in a court of law.

Not a correction so much as a clarification made months after the deed. No one there that night could know how the courts would rule.

 

[jc456]

Not a correction so much as a clarification made months after the deed. No one there that night could know how the courts would rule.

So they became vigilantes?

 

[alang1216]

So they became vigilantes?

They were there for the protest, not to protect anyone. It was Kyle to traveled to the protest with the goal to be a vigilante.

 

[jc456]

They were there for the protest, not to protect anyone. It was Kyle to traveled to the protest with the goal to be a vigilante.

Why did they chase Kyle then?

 

[alang1216]

Why did they chase Kyle then?

You mean the guy who had just shot an unarmed protestor and was still armed?

 

[jc456]

You mean the guy who had just shot an unarmed protestor and was still armed?

Yeah, defending himself from a pedophile, now why did they chase him? Why don’t you answer? Hahaha vigilantes. Can’t have it both ways fk

 

[alang1216]

Yeah, defending himself from a pedophile, now why did they chase him? Why don’t you answer? Hahaha vigilantes. Can’t have it both ways fk

Your hindsight is somewhat less than 20-20 I think.

 

[jc456]

Your hindsight is somewhat less than 20-20 I think.

your lack of sight is acknowledged. another pivot huh?

 

[JoeB131]

t almost looks to me like the New York Post, for whatever reason, is deliberately setting itself up to be the target of a libel lawsuit; which they will surely lose unless they can come up with some credible evidence that it is, in fact Mr. Rittenhouse who appears in that video.

Yes, the NY Post is notoriously left wing, Mormon Bob.

Whether they should or should not; whether they do or do not; is no excuse whatsoever for subhuman pieces of criminal shit who steal or destroy other people's property, nor for those who defend this behavior. Standing with these animals only proves that you are no better than they are.

Hey, I agree. People shouldn't loot.
The cops also shouldn't shoot unarmed black people.

You can't expect one group to follow "the rules" when no one else does.

Funny, I didn't see you condeming the thugs who stormed the capitol as "criminal shit".... but they were white.

you also defended David Koresh, who murdered four ATF agents.

Oh, yeah, and you belong to a cult started by a pedophilic con-artist.

Maybe you should watch the company you keep, Mormon Bob.

 

[JoeB131]

It had nothing to do with sympathy. The trial had nothing to do with if Rittenhouse was a choir boy, a white supremacist or a BLM member. In fairness, it also doesn't matter the morality or lack of thereof of his victims. Did Rittenhouse defend himself and was he in imminent danger. The clear answer is yes. You are trying to inject all this emotional junk that is irrelevent.

Quite the contrary, if the jury had heard about how he beat up a teen girl, they might not think he was just some innocent waif defending himself. The judge in that case pretty much tied an anchor around the neck of the prosecutors, while allowing evidence of Rosenbaum's mental issues to come in.

What is the impetus behind Biden's Smash and Dash? What about the Biden Supply Chain Disruption? Has it ever occurred to you that losers will be losers and they will loot and NOT work because that is what they do? Well, that and vote for Democrats.

Nope, I don't listen to fox news and don't pretend the occassional organized shoplifting is a national crisis. Most of the "smash and dash" is run by organized crime. They pay people to steal and they resell the stuff. Stores just have to come up with better countermeasures.

Supply Chain Disruptions actually started with Trump's unncessary Trade war. If you worked in Supply Chain as I have, you'd know this.

Right, that is working out really well. Just let people walk into any store and take what they want. No consequences. Great idea.

We lock up 2 million people... it doesn't deter real crime, much less minor property crime. Maybe the real problem is that the brick and mortar business model is obsolete.

I see that percentages are all of a sudden relevant again. Now, let's apply that to your lame white people welfare argument.

Sure, just let me count the 2.5 Trillion we spend on White People Welfare...errr "entitlements", and then we can have that discussion.

 

[JoeB131]

How many people did police shoot overall? That number is basically the monthly death toll in Chicago. One death is a tragedy. 250 deaths is a statistic.

Police shoot 1000 suspects a year.

The monthly death toll in Chicago (made a lot worse because the NRA got our gun law thrown out)

678 people have been murdered in Chicago in the first ten months of this year. that's about 68 a month.

So. No. Not even comparable. But also meaningless. The police are supposed to protect the public, not kill them.

 

[JoeB131]

If a fetus isn't a person, why does someone who kills a pregnant woman get hit with TWO counts of murder instead of one?

Because we have stupid laws in this country that give some rights to blobs of flesh.

So if I punch a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic, that's murder, instead of saving her $300.00. That's crazy.

 

[JoeB131]

They have never been attacked so they don’t understand the importance of the right of self defense

Actually, that's not true. I was mugged on a CTA bus by five thugs in 1978.

Still my position stands... murdering people over property or even a minor physical altercation isn't justified. You can ask any soldier who has killed someone in a war, that it still nags at them for the rest of their lives.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Police shoot 1000 suspects a year.

The monthly death toll in Chicago (made a lot worse because the NRA got our gun law thrown out)

678 people have been murdered in Chicago in the first ten months of this year. that's about 68 a month.

So. No. Not even comparable. But also meaningless. The police are supposed to protect the public, not kill them.

Aren’t the protecting the public by killing the bad guys? How should they protect the public?

 

[jc456]

Whether they should or should not; whether they do or do not; is no excuse whatsoever for subhuman pieces of criminal shit who steal or destroy other people's property, nor for those who defend this behavior. Standing with these animals only proves that you are no better than they are.

Be known by the company that you choose to keep, subhuman piece of shit Incel Joe.

Can we begin calling these looters what they really are? An organized militia, they are carrying weapons and they are organized.

 

[jc456]

Actually, that's not true. I was mugged on a CTA bus by five thugs in 1978.

Still my position stands... murdering people over property or even a minor physical altercation isn't justified. You can ask any soldier who has killed someone in a war, that it still nags at them for the rest of their lives.

how is that the same as Kyle Rittenhouse? He was threatened. Actually heard by others. You all want it only your way on this shit. You want parents arrested and hung out to dry for supposedly threatening school boards. Then you're saying that Kyle had to just accept his threat and shut the fk up and don't defend himself. WTF is wrong with you fkers?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Quite the contrary, if the jury had heard about how he beat up a teen girl, they might not think he was just some innocent waif defending himself. The judge in that case pretty much tied an anchor around the neck of the prosecutors, while allowing evidence of Rosenbaum's mental issues to come in.

No credible evidence that Mr. Rittenhouse did any such thing. Just a very poor-quality video of several young people in a fight, with an unsubstantiated claim that Mr. Rittenhouse was one of the participants. Are you capable of understanding why such a claim, such shoddy “evidence” would not be admissible in a court of law?

Funny, I didn't see you condeming [sic] the thugs who stormed the capitol as "criminal shit".... but they were white.

I have to admit that I have no idea what to make of that event, other than to be fairly certain that what the media has told us about it is, for the most part, lies. Things just don't add up. Whatever happened, I do not defend the actions of those who participated in it. It's very likely that if I thought I understood what really happened, that I'd condemn the participants just as I condemn the left wrong-wing Black LIES Matter criminals and terrorists whose side you are happy to take against that of any actual human beings.

I do have to wonder about the manner in which they are being treated. They've been held prisoner, now, for nearly a year, without trial, in a manner that clearly violates their Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy and public trial, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. They're being kept hidden away, in a manner more consistent with how we would expect to see political prisoners treated in some place like North Korea, than how defendants in a legitimate criminal case would be expected to be treated in this country.

And the one fatality in that incident, Ashli Babbitt, shot in the back from a distance, in a manner that seems very far removed from any circumstances under which police are allowed to shoot at citizens, even those suspected of being actively involved in a crime.

You keep harping about how you claim that police are shooting too many black criminals; yet the vast majority of those whose deaths you decry were shot with much more justification that can possibly exist for the way Ashli Babbitt was shot. To be consistent and honest (not that I would ever expect either of you) you would either need to admit that Ashli Babbitt's shooting was murder, or else admit that many of those black criminals who you claim were murdered, were, in fact, killed justifiably.

Of course, your support of the savage practice of abortion puts the lie to any concern you may claim to have for human life, other than how it fits into whatever malevolent political agenda you with to promote. Even if we assume that every black person who has ever been shot by a police officer was shot unjustifiably, and that every such shooting is nothing less than first-degree murder, it does not come anywhere close to the scale of the number of black people who have been murdered, with your approval, via abortion.

you also defended David Koresh, who murdered four ATF agents.

Koresh was a whacko, and I won't defend him or his bizarre cult.

But it was the ATF and other government-based criminals who murdered him and his followers, not the the way around. Whatever Koresh and his followers were accused of doing, none of it called for the way government attacked them.

Oh, yeah, and you belong to a cult started by a pedophilic con-artist.

Your persistent malicious lies about my religion are not relevant to this discussion. The only thing you could ever possibly accomplish by continuing to repeat them would be to destroy your own credibility; but that's not possible because you've never had any credibility in the first place, to destroy.

It's very easy to imagine that if there was any religious group that was all gathered into one place, that you would be very pleased for the opportunity to burn that place down and murder as many members of that religion as you could, just as the government did to the Branch Davidians. You'd be happy, I think, to murder women and children, and claim that you were doing it to “protect” them.

Because we have stupid laws in this country that give some rights to blobs of flesh.

So if I punch a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic, that's murder, instead of saving her $300.00. That's crazy.

That's how twisted and depraved you are. You deny the very humanity of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, and strongly support the “right” to murder them in cold blood for no better reason than that their existence is inconvenient to someone else; yet you demand that violent destructive, subhuman “Black LIES Matter filth be considered and treated as human, no matter how profoundly their behavior proves them to be anything but human; and you openly take their side against that of any actual humans.

Actually, that's not true. I was mugged on a CTA bus by five thugs in 1978.

Still my position stands... murdering people over property or even a minor physical altercation isn't justified. You can ask any soldier who has killed someone in a war, that it still nags at them for the rest of their lives.

That's a choice to be made by those who seek to unjustly deprive others of their rightful property. By making that choice, they are valuing their victims' property over their victim's lives as well as over their own lives. If they don't want to be killed over property, then there's a very good way to avoid that, which is to keep their filthy thieving hands off of that which is not theirs.


And the value of property is not as isolated form the value of life as you want to treat it.

For one thing, rightfully-earned property represents the portion of one's life, one's labor, one's efforts, that went into earning it.

To deprive one of one's property is to take that part of his life form him that went into earning it.


And in many instances, property represents the ability to survive. The roof over one's head, the clothes on one's back, the food on one's table. The vehicle that allows one to get to his job, and the tools that allow one to perform his job, in order to earn his living—you take that away, and you're taking away part of his life.

Of course, you'd have to be a productive, working citizen who contribute to society and earns an honest living by doing so, rather that, as you clearly are, a worthless parasite who is only a burden on others; in order to understand this. But your inability and unwillingness to understand it does not, in any way, refute it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can we begin calling these looters what they really are? An organized militia, they are carrying weapons and they are organized.

I would go with "armed insurrectionists".