Leftwing Antifa domestic terrorist shoots man for not getting Covid vaccine.

The difference between me and you is that I don't support riots, or feel the need to defend anyone who commits violence regardless of political affiliation. As for putting out rioter's fires. A person typically uses water or maybe a fire extinguisher to put out fires. Not sure how you do it carrying an AR15




I never heard word one from you decrying the antifart goons and their rioting. Not one. Yes, Kyle was using water to put out the fires. The AR-15 was slung on his back. You know, that black thingy. Your deflection is duly noted. and denied, with proof.
 
I know. He was being hyperbolic. To which I added my own hyperbole.

It is called "sense of humor"




No, you are being a moron. I made no claim at all that the AR was being used to put out fires. It is DOCUMENTED that that is exactly what Kyle was doing, and the antifart goons attacked him for doing so.
 
30 murders??? According to whom?? Certainly not the FBI, or any law enforcement group in the USA. You're talking about the murder numbers from right wing terrorism. Anti-Fa isn't even on their radar for radical terrorist groups. But the Proud Boys have been designated a terrorist group by governments other than the USA,

There is no danger from left wing terrorists, because there aren't any at the moment. Since Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City, right wing hate groups and thugs calling themselves "militias" have been the greatest threat to the safety and security of the USA.








The FBI is no longer a credible source for anything.
 




I would advise you to check again

Check what? Self defense in Wisconsin? or the one and only time the Left gives a flying fuck when the police are attacked by mobs and cheer when the police shoot in self-defense?
 
This is the Democratic Socialists at work, Folks. They think they should kill someone for not getting vaccinated. I wonder who on the left is paying him to "protest".


Antifa member charged with shooting anti-vaxxer in Washington


An Antifa member with a long history of posting far-left extremist content online has been arrested and charged with the shooting of an anti-vaxxer in Olympia, Wash.

Benjamin Anthony Varela, 36, of Olympia, was arrested on Thursday and charged with first-degree assault while armed with a deadly weapon.

On Sept. 4, a couple dozen Antifa from around the Pacific Northwest traveled to the Washington state Capitol building to try to shut down an anti-COVID vaccine mandate protest. The black-clad group was met by the rally’s volunteer right-wing security, who included Proud Boys members. When the Antifa group ran to the Intercity Transit Station, one of their masked members turned around and fired five 9mm pistol rounds in the direction of the right-wing group, which was about 50 feet behind, according to security footage. Proud Boys member Tusitala Toese was injured in the shooting.

Varela, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, deleted most of his social media accounts before his arrest, but posts still available on Twitter show he corresponded back and forth with the Spokane and Olympia DSA chapters as well as Libcom.org, an anarchist-Communist website. Prior to deleting his Twitter account, his bio read, "professional anarchist, thug, and paid protester." His YouTube account, which is still online but doesn’t have any videos available to the public, features a red and black Antifa flag as its profile image. According to the affidavit, Varela ran into an alley behind the Union Gospel Mission after the shooting and discarded his black uniform.

Harris or some other dem cult leader will post his bail so the little dnc brownshirt can go commit more terror
 
No, you are being a moron. I made no claim at all that the AR was being used to put out fires. It is DOCUMENTED that that is exactly what Kyle was doing, and the antifart goons attacked him for doing so.
So you weren't being hyperbolic when you claimed his only crime was putting out fires? I think the arraignment says otherwise.

It's kind of like saying that Timothy Mcveigh was arrested for flossing his teeth. Sure he might have done so, but the FBI seemed to have more of a problem with him... you know exploding a huge bomb and killing people.

It is interesting you like to claim to cite facts while leaving the FACT out that he shot 3 people, killed 2 of them on 2 separate instances. While travelling quite a few miles armed with a long gun to do so. Facts that the police figured warrented arresting him and the DA found sufficiently grave and the evidence sufficiently overwhelming to charge him with multiple homicides. A fact that he will now be allowed to dispute in a court of law.

I will even make a prediction for you. Rittenhouse will NOT testify on his own behalf. The reason being that any half decent DA will make him explain why he was the only one who felt threatened enough to shoot people on that night while there where other armed people around who didn't? Why he felt the need to make the trip to Kenosha armed as he was in the first place? It would be hard to convince any jury that he was simply there out of a sense of civic duty.
 
So you weren't being hyperbolic when you claimed his only crime was putting out fires? I think the arraignment says otherwise.

It's kind of like saying that Timothy Mcveigh was arrested for flossing his teeth. Sure he might have done so, but the FBI seemed to have more of a problem with him... you know exploding a huge bomb and killing people.

It is interesting you like to claim to cite facts while leaving the FACT out that he shot 3 people, killed 2 of them on 2 separate instances. While travelling quite a few miles armed with a long gun to do so. Facts that the police figured warrented arresting him and the DA found sufficiently grave and the evidence sufficiently overwhelming to charge him with multiple homicides. A fact that he will now be allowed to dispute in a court of law.

I will even make a prediction for you. Rittenhouse will NOT testify on his own behalf. The reason being that any half decent DA will make him explain why he was the only one who felt threatened enough to shoot people on that night while there where other armed people around who didn't? Why he felt the need to make the trip to Kenosha armed as he was in the first place? It would be hard to convince any jury that he was simply there out of a sense of civic duty.



He WORKS in Kenosha! He has friends in Kenosha! The two violent felons that he killed in self defense traveled much further to get to Kenosha than he did.

He was indicted because of a corrupt DA. They can indict a ham sandwich, remember.

There is loads of video evidence that supports him. Not you. He only shot those who were attacking him. One person, who was attacking, put his hands up and backed away, and Kyle didn't shoot him.

That blows your claims right out of the water.
 
He WORKS in Kenosha! He has friends in Kenosha! The two violent felons that he killed in self defense traveled much further to get to Kenosha than he did.

He was indicted because of a corrupt DA. They can indict a ham sandwich, remember.

There is loads of video evidence that supports him. Not you. He only shot those who were attacking him. One person, who was attacking, put his hands up and backed away, and Kyle didn't shoot him.

That blows your claims right out of the water.
Actually it is the grand jury that is supposed to be able to "indict a ham sandwich"

As to him working in Kenosha. I never had any indication he did. And even if he did. Do you typically go to work with a ar15?

I also find it interesting you feel confident enough to claim the DA is corrupt.

A DA has to be able to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. A defendant simply has to establish reasonable doubt in 1 juror. DA's are typically reluctant to put cases, especially high profile cases in front of a judge that they aren't reasonably sure they can win.
You on the other hand seem to be sure enough of your position to be able to make a pretty flagrant accusation. Can you explain to me why?
 
A DA has to be able to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. A defendant simply has to establish reasonable doubt in 1 juror.
In this case, the DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not have a reasonable fear of bodily harm or death.
 
This is the Democratic Socialists at work, Folks. They think they should kill someone for not getting vaccinated. I wonder who on the left is paying him to "protest".


Antifa member charged with shooting anti-vaxxer in Washington


An Antifa member with a long history of posting far-left extremist content online has been arrested and charged with the shooting of an anti-vaxxer in Olympia, Wash.

Benjamin Anthony Varela, 36, of Olympia, was arrested on Thursday and charged with first-degree assault while armed with a deadly weapon.

On Sept. 4, a couple dozen Antifa from around the Pacific Northwest traveled to the Washington state Capitol building to try to shut down an anti-COVID vaccine mandate protest. The black-clad group was met by the rally’s volunteer right-wing security, who included Proud Boys members. When the Antifa group ran to the Intercity Transit Station, one of their masked members turned around and fired five 9mm pistol rounds in the direction of the right-wing group, which was about 50 feet behind, according to security footage. Proud Boys member Tusitala Toese was injured in the shooting.

Varela, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, deleted most of his social media accounts before his arrest, but posts still available on Twitter show he corresponded back and forth with the Spokane and Olympia DSA chapters as well as Libcom.org, an anarchist-Communist website. Prior to deleting his Twitter account, his bio read, "professional anarchist, thug, and paid protester." His YouTube account, which is still online but doesn’t have any videos available to the public, features a red and black Antifa flag as its profile image. According to the affidavit, Varela ran into an alley behind the Union Gospel Mission after the shooting and discarded his black uniform.

Shooting him might have been a little extreme, at least for the moment.
 
In this case, the DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not have a reasonable fear of bodily harm or death.
Under Wisconsin law, you’re allowed to use self-defense to protect yourself by threatening to use force or by actually using force against someone, but only if:

  • You use only the force necessary to prevent or terminate interference with your person or someone else’s person.
  • You must reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself.
The word reasonably is a big deal, though – if your belief is unreasonable, you can still be charged with homicide. For example, if someone who’s unlikely to cause you great bodily harm or kill you comes after you with his or her fists and you end up killing that person, the jury in your case may find that your belief that you were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable.

In a case like that, the prosecutor would most likely try to show the jury that you could’ve deescalated the situation without killing the other person. He or she might suggest that you could’ve simply retreated from the situation. In other cases, the prosecutor might argue that you provoked the original attack.

Sometimes you have a duty to retreat from a situation.
If you provoke an attack, you can’t claim self-defense unless you’ve exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from the situation.

As you can see " I felt threatened" isn't a get out of jail free card in Wisconsin. And 2 of the 3 people were UNARMED. As I already noted. Rittenhouse was there, armed with a long rifle that he wasn't supposed to have in the first place. He's also recorded saying this.
37 seconds in.
Speaks to intent. I rather like the DA's chances.
 
Check what? Self defense in Wisconsin? or the one and only time the Left gives a flying fuck when the police are attacked by mobs and cheer when the police shoot in self-defense?
Ah, so when you said that the right doesn't use violence you meant besides those times that they did?

I didn't give you one instance but three. I could also do this. The Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting

This is by no means a comprehensive list and as I said before the left has its share of crazies. But guess what. You have more.
 
Under Wisconsin law, you’re allowed to use self-defense to protect yourself by threatening to use force or by actually using force against someone, but only if:
  • You use only the force necessary to prevent or terminate interference with your person or someone else’s person.
  • You must reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself.
Yes. Under WI the DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Rittemnhouse could not have reasonably believed the people chasing him intended to cause him harm.
In a case like that, the prosecutor would most likely try to show the jury that you could’ve deescalated the situation without killing the other person.
He was running away. He turned and shot in response to the people chasing him preparing to attack him.
If there was a burden to de-escalate, he met it.
He or she might suggest that you could’ve simply retreated from the situation. In other cases, the prosecutor might argue that you provoked the original attack.
Even if true, under WI law, as soon as you disengage from that provocation, your right to self-defense resets.
Running away = disengaging
Sometimes you have a duty to retreat from a situation. If you provoke an attack, you can’t claim self-defense unless you’ve exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from the situation.
1: He was running away
2: See above.
And 2 of the 3 people were UNARMED
One had a a gun. The other had a blunt weapon - indeed, he was in the process of swinging it when he was shot.
And, a person on no way needs to be armed for the justifiable use of deadly force against him.

The only way to soundly argue Rittenehouse did not act in self-defense is to soundly argue the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had a right to do so.
Please proceed.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top