Let's talk about the rioters

[YoursTruly]

So according to you, I cant have the stance of being against rioting and at the same time being against cops using unnecessary violence? You're ******* stupid.

You're stance against rioting seems to be more supporting than condemning. Especially since you still can't see how Rittenhouse was defending himself against Rosenbaum was threatening his life. And the lives of others that night.

 

[ClaireH]

Certainly is a twist. It's also irrelevant. Why he was there is immaterial.

There is no proof he was getting water so I responded to that poster who ad libbed with “new” information. When posters ad lib to the facts, either a valid source, court testimony, or retraction is owed to the thread.

 

[FA_Q2]

So according to you, I cant have the stance of being against rioting and at the same time being against cops using unnecessary violence? You're ******* stupid.

Did I say that. No, I did not.

But go on, it is blatantly obvious what I said to everyone reading this and that it directly applies to you.

 

[FA_Q2]

Him being there makes him a suspect.

I am hesitant to bring this along further as you seemed to want to avoid it but you are the OP so I will state that is also irrelevant. Whatever one may or may not suspect him of doing, the actions that followed were blatantly illegal. If the defendants in that case could establish whatever crime they pleased as a solid fact it would STILL have been illegal to do what they did and that means it was murder.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is no proof he was getting water so I responded to that poster who ad libbed with “new” information. When posters ad lib to the facts, either a valid source, court testimony, or retraction is owed to the thread.

Sure, but a retraction of the immaterial is also, well.... immaterial

It does not matter either way. They can cling to their fantasies about why Arbury's actions were innocuous. The other thread points out how the law there is structured and explains quite well how Arbury's killing was not lawful no matter what he was doing there. And that trial will come to the correct conclusion as the Rittenhouse one did and the lot of them (the defendants in Arbury's murder) will almost certainly see a lot of jail time.

And to bring this around to the topic, this is exactly why you will not see anyone on the left discussing this case at all, they collectively do not care about it whatsoever as it clearly and loudly underlines the fact the system actually WORKS and is not steeped in racism to the point in needs to be torn down. One of the most just system ever created I might add.

Make no mistake about it, the media wants the riots, they are fantastic for business and the left needs the conflict, identity politics only works if you can pit everyone as opposing rather than cooperating with each other. Identity politics is all the left is anymore, it is ALL about tribalism now.

 

[john doe 101]

Did I say that. No, I did not.

But go on, it is blatantly obvious what I said to everyone reading this and that it directly applies to you.

This is exactly what you said......

You can say you don't condone the riots till you turn blue in the face. When you follow those comments with others that clearly do condone the riots then your original claim is, of course, going to be rejected.

It's no different from when you hear someone say 'I'm am not a racist but...' and whatever follows the but is some racist shit. Obviously the 'I said I was not a racist' is bullshit.

I do not condone the riots but tell the cops to stop killing people. Yes, you are condoning the riots, you are placing the justification right there.

It should be obvious that no matter how many times I say I dont condone rioting, you're going to say I condone rioting. And your stupid example is exactly, stupid as it doesnt apply to what we are discussing. I can say I dont condone rioting. I can also say I dont condone police unnecessarily killing people. By saying the latter doesnt mean I'm contradicting the former statement. THAT shoudl be obvious to anyone reading this.

But I really dont give a **** what you dumbfucks "think". Most of you are behind hope.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree with you that, if they were doing any damage or carrying weapons of any kind, they were thugs or encouraged by thugs to do the dirty. I also think that Rittenhouse had no business being there, because this type of activity attracts naive young people with wannabe ambitions to act out their fantasies. Law enforcement has put many of these violent people in jail, as they are tracked down and arrested.

"Rittenhouse had no business being there"

This claim is obviously false. The US Constitution says he had ever right to be there. Woke leftist don't get the final say on where you're allowed to go.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is exactly what you said......

It should be obvious that no matter how many times I say I dont condone rioting, you're going to say I condone rioting. And your stupid example is exactly, stupid as it doesnt apply to what we are discussing. I can say I dont condone rioting. I can also say I dont condone police unnecessarily killing people. By saying the latter doesnt mean I'm contradicting the former statement. THAT shoudl be obvious to anyone reading this.

But I really dont give a **** what you dumbfucks "think". Most of you are behind hope.

Yup, you are not a racist BUT....

We know. You tried that already.

 

[ClaireH]

Sure, but a retraction of the immaterial is also, well.... immaterial

It does not matter either way. They can cling to their fantasies about why Arbury's actions were innocuous. The other thread points out how the law there is structured and explains quite well how Arbury's killing was not lawful no matter what he was doing there. And that trial will come to the correct conclusion as the Rittenhouse one did and the lot of them (the defendants in Arbury's murder) will almost certainly see a lot of jail time.

And to bring this around to the topic, this is exactly why you will not see anyone on the left discussing this case at all, they collectively do not care about it whatsoever as it clearly and loudly underlines the fact the system actually WORKS and is not steeped in racism to the point in needs to be torn down. One of the most just system ever created I might add.

Make no mistake about it, the media wants the riots, they are fantastic for business and the left needs the conflict, identity politics only works if you can pit everyone as opposing rather than cooperating with each other. Identity politics is all the left is anymore, it is ALL about tribalism now.

I concur on everything except for the one item of contention where you have pointed out that this is a little thing of no matter when a poster lies and will continue to repeat the lie. As a poster I have a choice to either let the lie go or to call it out. In my opinion, if people allow others to freely lie continuously on a public format more of it will happen, not less.

I have recently made it my “side job” to call out USMB deception from all factions lol The regulars on here who intentionally lie will continue to do so, but this gives uninformed readers knowledge that they might not know or will otherwise accept the lies as truisms.

 

[FA_Q2]

I concur on everything except for the one item of contention where you have pointed out that this is a little thing of no matter when a poster lies and will continue to repeat the lie. As a poster I have a choice to either let the lie go or to call it out. In my opinion, if people allow others to freely lie continuously on a public format more of it will happen, not less.

I have recently made it my “side job” to call out USMB deception from all factions lol The regulars on here who intentionally lie will continue to do so, but this gives uninformed readers knowledge that they might not know or will otherwise accept the lies as truisms.

lol, carry on then.

I have grown weary of bothering with most of the continual lies here. The most prolific offenders could have a fact displayed right in front of them, recognize it, acknowledge it and then continue on as if the fact never even ever existed.

 

[ClaireH]

lol, carry on then.

I have grown weary of bothering with most of the continual lies here. The most prolific offenders could have a fact displayed right in front of them, recognize it, acknowledge it and then continue on as if the fact never even ever existed.

Lol yes! I believe I’ve read the same posts from these exact posters you reference! I will learn from you, eventually, to ignore and save my energy…. but for today, I will carry on the good fight!

 

[Bobob]

You see, this is what I'm talking about, ignoring, dodging and spinning the topic. We're not discussing who's responsibility it is to handle the rioters. It's why the rioters are there, and why the left won't address the wrong doing of the rioters. The left don't even discuss how and why rioting is wrong.
They say they're for peace. And yet, they refuse to demand peace from their own rioters.

Why?

The fact is that the rioters were not "their own", so I don't know where you get this stuff from.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact is that the rioters were not "their own", so I don't know where you get this stuff from.

What the **** does "their own" mean?

 

[YoursTruly]

I agree with you that, if they were doing any damage or carrying weapons of any kind, they were thugs or encouraged by thugs to do the dirty. I also think that Rittenhouse had no business being there, because this type of activity attracts naive young people with wannabe ambitions to act out their fantasies. Law enforcement has put many of these violent people in jail, as they are tracked down and arrested.

Protecting yourself, even with a AR, isn't wrong. Going to places like this riot, to do good things, isn't a bad thing or even wrong.
Seems to me that people are putting way too much trust in the government. Had the government protected the people and the property from the nights of rioting before this night, there would've been nothing for the militia to be called in.
Red blooded Americans aren't going to allow thugs to take over. Especially since instances like in Kenosha, when the cops are told to stand down and allow the rioters to destroy everything. Too many people relying on the government to take care of them, in way too many ways. The thugs know this. This is why they do what they do.
Too much more of this BS, and the American spirit is going to rise up and put these thugs in the ground, where they belong. And not running around like teenagers terrorizing decent people.

 

[YoursTruly]

I am hesitant to bring this along further as you seemed to want to avoid it but you are the OP so I will state that is also irrelevant. Whatever one may or may not suspect him of doing, the actions that followed were blatantly illegal. If the defendants in that case could establish whatever crime they pleased as a solid fact it would STILL have been illegal to do what they did and that means it was murder.

You'll take up for thugs until you're a victim of one.

 

[Bobob]

Protecting yourself, even with a AR, isn't wrong. Going to places like this riot, to do good things, isn't a bad thing or even wrong.
Seems to me that people are putting way too much trust in the government. Had the government protected the people and the property from the nights of rioting before this night, there would've been nothing for the militia to be called in.
Red blooded Americans aren't going to allow thugs to take over. Especially since instances like in Kenosha, when the cops are told to stand down and allow the rioters to destroy everything. Too many people relying on the government to take care of them, in way too many ways. The thugs know this. This is why they do what they do.
Too much more of this BS, and the American spirit is going to rise up and put these thugs in the ground, where they belong. And not running around like teenagers terrorizing decent people.

A 17-year-old boy walking into a violent riot with an AR15 which he has no business carrying, is wrong.
That is the job of law enforcement. Armed citizens cause more harm than good. Agree with you on the thug part.

 

[YoursTruly]

A 17-year-old boy walking into a violent riot with an AR15 which he has no business carrying, is wrong.
That is the job of law enforcement. Armed citizens cause more harm than good. Agree with you on the thug part.

It's none of OUR business to judge what he was doing, since he was doing NO ONE any harm. Those who shouldn't have been there, were the ones who were adversely affecting the lives of others, and creating victims. Seriously it's almost like you dismissing the rioters. Had they not been there Kyle would not have been there.

The job of law enforcement is what ever their superiors tell them. They were told to stand down, and let the rioters do as they wish. That's not leadership. That's what's commonly known as "Tying the hands of law enforcement." Not allowing them to protect and serve.

But make no mistake, regardless of the failures of the mayor and the Chief, the rioters were the reason Kyle and the other militia were even out there. Considering that Kyle gave medical aid to two people, one of which was a protestor, I'd say it was a good thing he was there.
Not to mention, he helped get rid of a child rapist, which the justice system failed to do.
You see, the cops did there job. They put the child rapist behind bars. It was this over lenient justice system that allows people like that back into society, when they're not actually fit for society. Kyle did Rosenbaums next victims a huge favor.

 

[Bobob]

It's none of OUR business to judge what he was doing, since he was doing NO ONE any harm. Those who shouldn't have been there, were the ones who were adversely affecting the lives of others, and creating victims. Seriously it's almost like you dismissing the rioters. Had they not been there Kyle would not have been there.

The job of law enforcement is what ever their superiors tell them. They were told to stand down, and let the rioters do as they wish. That's not leadership. That's what's commonly known as "Tying the hands of law enforcement." Not allowing them to protect and serve.

But make no mistake, regardless of the failures of the mayor and the Chief, the rioters were the reason Kyle and the other militia were even out there. Considering that Kyle gave medical aid to two people, one of which was a protestor, I'd say it was a good thing he was there.
Not to mention, he helped get rid of a child rapist, which the justice system failed to do.
You see, the cops did there job. They put the child rapist behind bars. It was this over lenient justice system that allows people like that back into society, when they're not actually fit for society. Kyle did Rosenbaums next victims a huge favor.

Kyle was 17 years old and had no permit to carry that weapon. Traveling to what is a violent riot with a weapon is surely not the smartest thing to do, no matter what. His presence was harm waiting to happen. I believe that violent rioters should be shot or arrested, but not by a 17 year old boy.

 

[bripat9643]

Kyle was 17 years old and had no permit to carry that weapon. Traveling to what is a violent riot with a weapon is surely not the smartest thing to do, no matter what. His presence was harm waiting to happen. I believe that violent rioters should be shot or arrested, but not by a 17 year old boy.

You don't need a permit to carry a weapon, moron. That would be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. I marvel how you morons are so irate about the harm Rittenhouse might cause, but you don't give a hoot that thugs were burning down dozens of buildings.

Carrying a gun is a legal constitutionally protected activity. Burning down buildings is a crime.

You're obviously just a bunch of douchebags.

 

[YoursTruly]

Kyle was 17 years old and had no permit to carry that weapon. Traveling to what is a violent riot with a weapon is surely not the smartest thing to do, no matter what. His presence was harm waiting to happen. I believe that violent rioters should be shot or arrested, but not by a 17 year old boy.

Grosskreutz was in his 20's and didn't have a permit. Difference being, Kyle wasn't bound by a law to have a permit for his gun. GrossKreutz was.
But he didn't get charged with it. He willingly broke the law, knowing what the law was. The DA and the prosecutor knew this. And they didn't charge him.
So honestly, it's not about a ******* permit and you know it. Because not a "GOT DAYUM" one of you lefties said anything about Grosskreutz, and how he should've been charged with that crime, attempted assault (or murder since he was aiming his gun at Rittenhouse when he was attacking him), AND obstruction of justice for lying to the cops about his gun.

Kyle: Armed, but not attacking anyone. Charged with murder. Spent months in jail.
Grosskreutz, nothing. Not one single charge.