Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Drejka is a guy convicted of manslaughter for shooting someone who shoved him to the ground. He was convicted because it was proven in court that there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to warrant using lethal force.Rittenhouse not only had a guy chasing him....he had multiple people chasing him.
I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3, I'm just talking about the first guy. He only had one guy chasing him at that time and he shot him.
In the case of the guy in Denver, please don't tell me that a guy with a can of mase (1 guy standing back) is the same situation.
They share a similarity.
In the Florida incident, aggressor pushed Drejka to the ground. In this Denver case, the aggressor struck Dolloff in the face. Both Drejka and Dolloff responded with deadly force.
The question is: when is it acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor?
You're fine with Rittenhouse using deadly force. You're not fine with Dolloff using deadly force. You haven't stated your opinion on Drejka. What, specifically, makes these different?
I know nothing about Drejka and I don't intend to change that.
Rittenhouse was being chased by several people before he shot Rosenbaum. He also had people in front of him that were likely very menacing.
He was cornered.
Who the fuck chases someone with an assault rifle anyway ? Rosenbaum, besides being dead, is also stupid.
He was slapped because he tried to take the pepper spray from the dead guy. That's what I read. You can't just shoot someone because they hit you, but you can shoot someone to stop them from hitting you. From what I have seen it's murder.Nope..... Be a dam man and learn to take a hit. The only time you use excessive force is if you are threatened with excessive force. Who knows why the guy slapped the guy open handedly, but it drove the slapped guy off his rocker undoubtedly. Thought he was supposed to be a big bad security gaurd ? Where was his taser if he was a security gaurd ?? Why didn't he take points from his idle Biden, you know just shoot him in the leg man ? The question is whether or not the guy wanted to kill a right winger, and the preponderance of evidence should bare that out.We've seen this happen before, but it's usually the other way around.
If a dude hits you, do you support shooting him?
Rittenhouse not only had a guy chasing him....he had multiple people chasing him.
I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3, I'm just talking about the first guy. He only had one guy chasing him at that time and he shot him.
In the case of the guy in Denver, please don't tell me that a guy with a can of mase (1 guy standing back) is the same situation.
They share a similarity.
In the Florida incident, aggressor pushed Drejka to the ground. In this Denver case, the aggressor struck Dolloff in the face. Both Drejka and Dolloff responded with deadly force.
The question is: when is it acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor?
You're fine with Rittenhouse using deadly force. You're not fine with Dolloff using deadly force. You haven't stated your opinion on Drejka. What, specifically, makes these different?
I know nothing about Drejka and I don't intend to change that.
Rittenhouse was being chased by several people before he shot Rosenbaum. He also had people in front of him that were likely very menacing.
He was cornered.
Who the fuck chases someone with an assault rifle anyway ? Rosenbaum, besides being dead, is also stupid.
Consistency, based on Drejka, convicts Dolloff.You're trying to get an answer for something you don't even know the answer to yet. So you have already convicted Kyle...
No idea what you're rambling about. I'm just looking for some consistency on when it's acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor and when it's not.
That's it.
I think Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But not for shooting in self defense, which he might have had a right to do, but for excessive force beyond self defense. Like shooting Rosenbaum in the back.Consistency, based on Drejka, convicts Dolloff.You're trying to get an answer for something you don't even know the answer to yet. So you have already convicted Kyle...
No idea what you're rambling about. I'm just looking for some consistency on when it's acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor and when it's not.
That's it.
I agree.
If I remember correctly, they ended up reversing the Drejka decision.
We also had some rightwingers here defending Drejka, saying that deadly force is acceptable when standing your ground.
On to Rittenhouse, how does his stand then? He wasn’t attacked by his aggressor, at least not yet.
Where exactly is the line between acceptable deadly force and unacceptable deadly force against a person who attacks you?
Great. Now tell me the same info for white supremacists.ok...who's their leader? Where is their membership roster? How many chapters are there?Communism is an idea Joe. ANTIFA IS AN ORGANIZATION.
Wasn't Rosenbaum setting fires, and became angry when Rittenhouse came with the fire extinguisher ??? Right before Rosenbaum cornered Kyle in an attempt to hurt him due his anger, wasn't there a shot in which Kyle felt threatened by, and then Rosenbaum tried to lunge for Kyle therefore causing Kyle to open fire ? Then Kyle ran back around to administer 1st aid with another fella, but had to evacuate due to the mob getting after him again. This is when the mob attempted to take him down, causing Kyle to lose his footing where next he was on the ground in a highly vulnerable position. When the two guys attempted to exploit this vulnerable position (tried to snatch the weapon from Kyle, he opened up in self defence for fear of his life knowing why the mob was after him. Correct ?Rittenhouse not only had a guy chasing him....he had multiple people chasing him.
I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3, I'm just talking about the first guy. He only had one guy chasing him at that time and he shot him.
In the case of the guy in Denver, please don't tell me that a guy with a can of mase (1 guy standing back) is the same situation.
They share a similarity.
In the Florida incident, aggressor pushed Drejka to the ground. In this Denver case, the aggressor struck Dolloff in the face. Both Drejka and Dolloff responded with deadly force.
The question is: when is it acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor?
You're fine with Rittenhouse using deadly force. You're not fine with Dolloff using deadly force. You haven't stated your opinion on Drejka. What, specifically, makes these different?
I know nothing about Drejka and I don't intend to change that.
Rittenhouse was being chased by several people before he shot Rosenbaum. He also had people in front of him that were likely very menacing.
He was cornered.
Who the fuck chases someone with an assault rifle anyway ? Rosenbaum, besides being dead, is also stupid.
Was Rosenbaum armed ? The first incident, was it any different than the incident where he shot the guy in his forearm etc ? Otherwise did Kyle think that his life was in danger when Rosenbaum lunged for him, and yet missing him as Kyle spun around discharging his weapon to end the threat ??I think Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But not for shooting in self defense, which he might have had a right to do, but for excessive force beyond self defense. Like shooting Rosenbaum in the back.Consistency, based on Drejka, convicts Dolloff.You're trying to get an answer for something you don't even know the answer to yet. So you have already convicted Kyle...
No idea what you're rambling about. I'm just looking for some consistency on when it's acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor and when it's not.
That's it.
I agree.
If I remember correctly, they ended up reversing the Drejka decision.
We also had some rightwingers here defending Drejka, saying that deadly force is acceptable when standing your ground.
On to Rittenhouse, how does his stand then? He wasn’t attacked by his aggressor, at least not yet.
Where exactly is the line between acceptable deadly force and unacceptable deadly force against a person who attacks you?
Your take, but is it correct ?He was slapped because he tried to take the pepper spray from the dead guy. That's what I read. You can't just shoot someone because they hit you, but you can shoot someone to stop them from hitting you. From what I have seen it's murder.Nope..... Be a dam man and learn to take a hit. The only time you use excessive force is if you are threatened with excessive force. Who knows why the guy slapped the guy open handedly, but it drove the slapped guy off his rocker undoubtedly. Thought he was supposed to be a big bad security gaurd ? Where was his taser if he was a security gaurd ?? Why didn't he take points from his idle Biden, you know just shoot him in the leg man ? The question is whether or not the guy wanted to kill a right winger, and the preponderance of evidence should bare that out.We've seen this happen before, but it's usually the other way around.
If a dude hits you, do you support shooting him?
What the clip left out was the willy nilly way that the "Victim" was pepper spraying anyone that he thought was a Protester. What you saw was a group of people finally start confronting him. And he was quite combative and threatening. And he was Armed. One of the Protesters just had enough and removed the threat. While I don't condone the shooting, I do say that the shooter had to weigh in shooting the SOB and the consequences. The Shooting of the SOB finally won over the consequences. The Victim really isn't a Victim at all.
Was all used up from some morons making batteries for the enviro wankers .........sorry.......all gone.STFU.............I watch your tribe murdering police ......burning shit down.......hitting old ladies with a 2 by 4.......Take power and come for our guns..........outside your safe places.........Oh you mean like spike lee ?We all know who DEFENDS the Police and who wants to DEFUND the police. Which also happens to be the same folks that want to disarm law abiding Americans because on the Police and military should have fire arms.That is not true...like I said check into it before you pop off.....I know that's what you clowns tell each other but its bullshit....You can only post bail after charges and arraignment. Therefore, cops aren’t arrested, they’re given polite interviews with their buddies and union representatives after they have a few days of vacation to gather their thoughts.
What they want, is us defenseless against their lawless BLM/ANTIFA mobs, who are the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, much as the KKK was in the past.
Democrats ALWAYS want to rule by force. They are always reaching for the whip. Peace loving Americans are loving and tolerant, and we trust that the forces of law and order will stand against Democrat lawlessness.
If that is true, the why are so many crazy right wingers having wet dreams about a civil war?
Anybody wishing for a civil war is nuts.
'See how it works for you.........lol
How long have you been suffering from your paranoia? Have you always thought someone was out to get you?
out to get me...........BS...........I'm sick and fucking tired or your fing animals.........send them here......and see what happens to them.........SCARED MY ASS........
I'm going to make this Crystal clear..............Take BLM...........Antifa ......and shove them up your ass.........I don't give a damn about them.......The police are there for their protection and not ours.
OK. Is it time to take your lithium yet?
So, no.Great. Now tell me the same info for white supremacists.ok...who's their leader? Where is their membership roster? How many chapters are there?Communism is an idea Joe. ANTIFA IS AN ORGANIZATION.
Post #66
Good God. In my post I said white supremacy is an idea, an ideology, not a group. Like Antifa. But hey, ignore what I posted, because you are so stuck on "but how come you dont criticize the other side" you can't admit when you are wrong. Another confirmation that discussion with you is a pointless waste of time.So, no.Great. Now tell me the same info for white supremacists.ok...who's their leader? Where is their membership roster? How many chapters are there?Communism is an idea Joe. ANTIFA IS AN ORGANIZATION.
Post #66
Rosenbaum was not armed.Was Rosenbaum armed ? The first incident, was it any different than the incident where he shot the guy in his forearm etc ? Otherwise did Kyle think that his life was in danger when Rosenbaum lunged for him, and yet missing him as Kyle spun around discharging his weapon to end the threat ??I think Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But not for shooting in self defense, which he might have had a right to do, but for excessive force beyond self defense. Like shooting Rosenbaum in the back.Consistency, based on Drejka, convicts Dolloff.You're trying to get an answer for something you don't even know the answer to yet. So you have already convicted Kyle...
No idea what you're rambling about. I'm just looking for some consistency on when it's acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor and when it's not.
That's it.
I agree.
If I remember correctly, they ended up reversing the Drejka decision.
We also had some rightwingers here defending Drejka, saying that deadly force is acceptable when standing your ground.
On to Rittenhouse, how does his stand then? He wasn’t attacked by his aggressor, at least not yet.
Where exactly is the line between acceptable deadly force and unacceptable deadly force against a person who attacks you?
Wasn't Rosenbaum setting fires, and became angry when Rittenhouse came with the fire extinguisher ??? Right before Rosenbaum cornered Kyle in an attempt to hurt him due his anger, wasn't there a shot in which Kyle felt threatened by, and then Rosenbaum tried to lunge for Kyle therefore causing Kyle to open fire ? Then Kyle ran back around to administer 1st aid with another fella, but had to evacuate due to the mob getting after him again. This is when the mob attempted to take him down, causing Kyle to lose his footing where next he was on the ground in a highly vulnerable position. When the two guys attempted to exploit this vulnerable position (tried to snatch the weapon from Kyle, he opened up in self defence for fear of his life knowing why the mob was after him. Correct ?Rittenhouse not only had a guy chasing him....he had multiple people chasing him.
I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3, I'm just talking about the first guy. He only had one guy chasing him at that time and he shot him.
In the case of the guy in Denver, please don't tell me that a guy with a can of mase (1 guy standing back) is the same situation.
They share a similarity.
In the Florida incident, aggressor pushed Drejka to the ground. In this Denver case, the aggressor struck Dolloff in the face. Both Drejka and Dolloff responded with deadly force.
The question is: when is it acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor?
You're fine with Rittenhouse using deadly force. You're not fine with Dolloff using deadly force. You haven't stated your opinion on Drejka. What, specifically, makes these different?
I know nothing about Drejka and I don't intend to change that.
Rittenhouse was being chased by several people before he shot Rosenbaum. He also had people in front of him that were likely very menacing.
He was cornered.
Who the fuck chases someone with an assault rifle anyway ? Rosenbaum, besides being dead, is also stupid.
Rosenbaum was not armed.Was Rosenbaum armed ? The first incident, was it any different than the incident where he shot the guy in his forearm etc ? Otherwise did Kyle think that his life was in danger when Rosenbaum lunged for him, and yet missing him as Kyle spun around discharging his weapon to end the threat ??I think Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But not for shooting in self defense, which he might have had a right to do, but for excessive force beyond self defense. Like shooting Rosenbaum in the back.Consistency, based on Drejka, convicts Dolloff.You're trying to get an answer for something you don't even know the answer to yet. So you have already convicted Kyle...
No idea what you're rambling about. I'm just looking for some consistency on when it's acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor and when it's not.
That's it.
I agree.
If I remember correctly, they ended up reversing the Drejka decision.
We also had some rightwingers here defending Drejka, saying that deadly force is acceptable when standing your ground.
On to Rittenhouse, how does his stand then? He wasn’t attacked by his aggressor, at least not yet.
Where exactly is the line between acceptable deadly force and unacceptable deadly force against a person who attacks you?
I know, I was just pointing out that pepper spray will disable you. Some people think it can't.The still photos shots prove that the weapon was out and discharges before the mace was sprayed.Pepper spray can disable you long enough for someone to do whatever they like to you.
Hence the 1st Degree Murder charge.
I think Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But not for shooting in self defense, which he might have had a right to do, but for excessive force beyond self defense. Like shooting Rosenbaum in the back.Consistency, based on Drejka, convicts Dolloff.You're trying to get an answer for something you don't even know the answer to yet. So you have already convicted Kyle...
No idea what you're rambling about. I'm just looking for some consistency on when it's acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor and when it's not.
That's it.
I agree.
If I remember correctly, they ended up reversing the Drejka decision.
We also had some rightwingers here defending Drejka, saying that deadly force is acceptable when standing your ground.
On to Rittenhouse, how does his stand then? He wasn’t attacked by his aggressor, at least not yet.
Where exactly is the line between acceptable deadly force and unacceptable deadly force against a person who attacks you?
Good God. In my post I said white supremacy is an idea, an ideology, not a group. Like Antifa. But hey, ignore what I posted, because you are so stuck on "but how come you dont criticize the other side" you can't admit when you are wrong. Another confirmation that discussion with you is a pointless waste of time.So, no.Great. Now tell me the same info for white supremacists.ok...who's their leader? Where is their membership roster? How many chapters are there?Communism is an idea Joe. ANTIFA IS AN ORGANIZATION.
Post #66
How do you know ? He didn't have a gun, knife, club, torch or other ?Rosenbaum was not armed.Was Rosenbaum armed ? The first incident, was it any different than the incident where he shot the guy in his forearm etc ? Otherwise did Kyle think that his life was in danger when Rosenbaum lunged for him, and yet missing him as Kyle spun around discharging his weapon to end the threat ??I think Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But not for shooting in self defense, which he might have had a right to do, but for excessive force beyond self defense. Like shooting Rosenbaum in the back.Consistency, based on Drejka, convicts Dolloff.You're trying to get an answer for something you don't even know the answer to yet. So you have already convicted Kyle...
No idea what you're rambling about. I'm just looking for some consistency on when it's acceptable to use deadly force against an aggressor and when it's not.
That's it.
I agree.
If I remember correctly, they ended up reversing the Drejka decision.
We also had some rightwingers here defending Drejka, saying that deadly force is acceptable when standing your ground.
On to Rittenhouse, how does his stand then? He wasn’t attacked by his aggressor, at least not yet.
Where exactly is the line between acceptable deadly force and unacceptable deadly force against a person who attacks you?
