JUDGE: Those Allegedly Shot By Rittenhouse Can’t Be Called ‘Victims’ During Trial, ‘Rioters’ And ‘Arsonists’ Both More Accurate

[YoursTruly]

What you say is True but it is painful and wrong at the same time. Chauvin should not have been sacrificed at the alter. The military should have been called out instead, Chauvin released and whole bunch of BLM and anti-fa should have been shot dead when they attacked instead.

As true as that might be, that's not how it works. You see, our government can't openly just start shooting people in America. They screwed the pooch when they started putting all the traffic camera's up. That's why they do that shit in Afghanistan. But here it's a no no for the government to do it.
BLM on the other hand, it's all perfectly legal. Well, not technically. But prosecutors know not to pursue those charges.

Have you seen the video of Rittenhouse shooting those two people. It's hilarious. Dude is scared out of his wits and still find the bravery to shoot two more on his way out. Honestly, most little white guys like would've just laid down in a fetal position and shat their pants. But not this kid. When the wolves surrounded him, beating on him, kicking him, trying to take his gun, he let'm have it.
And what was even funnier, one of the thugs he shot, was a long haired hippy-like white kid, protesting with black lives matter. That's priceless.

 

[YoursTruly]

he has his day in court. public opinion ain't worth shit these days. mine or anyone else's.

Public opinion was enough to get Chauvin found guilty. Wait, public opinion? Na, you're right. I take that back. Chauvin was found guilty to save the public from the onslaught of BLM if he'd been found not guilty.
It would've made the LA riots look like a trip to Disney land.

 

[YoursTruly]

The one with the gun was not illegally armed nor was he a felon. There is a lot of stuff, some accurate some false being said about their past, none of which have any bearing on the events of that night. Being a former criminal does not make it fair game to shoot them, nor does being unsavory. The only one illegally armed was Rittenhouse, and he knew it, but did it anyway. He had no business being there armed and violating curfew, which they all were and the police did nothing except welcome in the vigilantes.

The laws are bit skewed as to what was legal or not. From what I understand, the law skips over his age limits on carrying a firearm. They deal with something about 14 to 16 yr old. Then another law pics up at 18.
I watched a hearing the judge and some other people were having, and the one attorney was saying that the prosecutor is mistaken. Then went on to sight the laws. And mentioned how the state legislature dropped the ball in all this.

 

[YoursTruly]

Indeed.
That dude about to throw a flaming bottle of gasoline at your house?
Yeah. You can shoot him.

Not if he's black. That would be racist.

 

[Coyote]

he has his day in court. public opinion ain't worth shit these days. mine or anyone else's.

I agree. But if he had not been there,

in the end, who really had business being there?

Kind of my point. I said this before. Why did the police allow curfew to be violated? Why did they allow a kid to come in armed like that, a situation he did mot have the experience or maturity to handle. Seriously?

 

[Coyote]

What you say is True but it is painful and wrong at the same time. Chauvin should not have been sacrificed at the alter. The military should have been called out instead, Chauvin released and whole bunch of BLM and anti-fa should have been shot dead when they attacked instead.

But make sure you spare the rightwing agitators.

 

[Coyote]

You have got to be joking..if he wasn't armed, they would have killed him. The three shot were criminals attacking him------they deserved to be shot and society is better off with the two dead, and other almost killed off as well.

He had no business being there, violating curfew period. That is what the police are for. Not some wet behind the ears vigilante wannabe. Notice no one else ended up killing anyone.

 

[Coyote]

If they had not attacked him, they would still be alive.

He was there illegally. He chased AFTER he shot and killed an unarmed man. He was illegally armed. He did not have the maturity or experience to handle the situation that was real life and not some game. Notice that no one else had to shoot anyone. He had no business being there.

The three guys who chased and attacked him did so because he attempted to put out a dumpster fire they started. So we could also very well say that their illegal actions led to their unnecessary deaths because they couldn't handle the situation, i.e., the extinguishing of their arson fire.

There was no dumpster fire they were involved in. Two of the guys only started chasing him after some yelled that he had shot and killed someone. At the moment the only illegal action by those three he shot was violating curfew. This is why we have police, not good ol boys and vigilante wannabes. But tbe police were grossly negligent here.

Why something like this enraged them to the point of violence is beyond me.

 

[iceberg]

I agree. But if he had not been there,

Kind of my point. I said this before. Why did the police allow curfew to be violated? Why did they allow a kid to come in armed like that, a situation he did mot have the experience or maturity to handle. Seriously?

if people had not been rioting and looting...

we can back this up a lot. if he violated curfew, so did everyone else.

you attack 1 side with facts, yes. but you dismiss those facts for the other side.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

He was there illegally.

Because of the curfew, they all were. And let's not forget that the rioters were there long before Rittenhouse committing illegal acts such as burning and destroying property.

He chased AFTER he shot and killed an unarmed man.

Wrong. According to this article in The New Yorker, Rosenbaum came across Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse was trotting back to the car dealership after the dumpster fire confrontation at the gas station (Rittenhouse was not the one who extinguished the fire as I originally thought) and began chasing Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into the dealership's parking lot and at this point, a rioter fired his pistol in the air. Rittenhouse turned around to face Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum attacked at which point Rittenhouse fired to defend himself.

He was illegally armed. He did not have the maturity or experience to handle the situation that was real life and not some game. Notice that no one else had to shoot anyone. He had no business being there.

Given that the rioters were destroying property of people not connected to the police shooting of Jacob Blake, I would say they did not have the maturity or experience to handle the situation either.

There was no dumpster fire they were involved in.

Correct. But for some unknown reason, the extinguishing of the dumpster fire enraged the mob.

Two of the guys only started chasing him after some yelled that he had shot and killed someone.

Incorrect. As mentioned above, Rosenbaum was the first person shot but he was shot for chasing and attacking Rittenhouse. Apparently for no reason other than that Rittenhouse seemed to be part of the group acting against the rioters and their juvenile, criminal act of arson.

At the moment the only illegal action by those three he shot was violating curfew.

And destroying property. Not to mention that the one who fired his pistol in the air probably did so against firearm ordinances.

This is why we have police, not good ol boys and vigilante wannabes. But tbe police were grossly negligent here.

The police themselves were the subject and target of the riots, purportedly for the gross negligence of the Jacob Blake shooting.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Yep! Thanks for asking.

Where is it then?

 

[JusticeHammer]

If he had not been there illegally armed, no one would have died. His illegal actions led to two unnecessary killings because he couldn’t handle the situation.

Like all libs the illegal actions of the rioters are alright though? Hypocrite.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have no idea what witnesses said and I don't believe I saw the video, I read about it.

Then you made a mistake. Because the video does not show that. It is a claim made by 2 witnesses.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Public opinion was enough to get Chauvin found guilty. Wait, public opinion? Na, you're right. I take that back. Chauvin was found guilty to save the public from the onslaught of BLM if he'd been found not guilty.
It would've made the LA riots look like a trip to Disney land.

So you are saying you are a corrupt liar who would sit on a jury and send innocent people to jail, because of your politics. I mean, you just assumed it about 12 jurors. That must be because you think they would sink as low as you would.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The police themselves were the subject and target of the riots, purportedly for the gross negligence of the Jacob Blake shooting.

That doesn't give license to vigilantes.

 

[WEATHER53]

Finally a thinker that doesn’t capitulate to the lynch mob mentality

 

[WEATHER53]

The one with the gun was not illegally armed nor was he a felon. There is a lot of stuff, some accurate some false being said about their past, none of which have any bearing on the events of that night. Being a former criminal does not make it fair game to shoot them, nor does being unsavory. The only one illegally armed was Rittenhouse, and he knew it, but did it anyway. He had no business being there armed and violating curfew, which they all were and the police did nothing except welcome in the vigilantes.

Past conduct does have bearing on current conduct even if not legally enterable as evidence

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

if people had not been rioting and looting...

we can back this up a lot. if he violated curfew, so did everyone else.

you attack 1 side with facts, yes. but you dismiss those facts for the other side.

Because your whataboutism is pathetic and does not excuse illegal actions of others.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Past conduct does have bearing on current conduct even if not legally enterable as evidence

Which is why the criminal records of the dead guys aren't allowed at trial.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That doesn't give license to vigilantes.

Doesn't give license to destroy property either.