Reactions to Kyle verdict define different views of the meaning of “justice.”

[WTH_Progs?]

How many times have you guys had to double check the guys shot were white? I swear I've checked twice. They way left leadership is talking a guy would swear they were black or at least Muslim. These Demorats are cracked.

 

[Rigby5]

The culpability is in failing to do their job to control the rioters. It is their job to maintain law and order; and a right of the people to have their safety and order protected.

When government fails to perform this duty, fails to even make a credible effort at doing so, then vigilantism is an entirely reasonable and expected result.

No, the rioters were correct, and the problem is not training police properly, and using rules of engagement from the military, that are illegal for the police to use on civilians.
The half a dozens shots into Blake at close range were all 2nd degree attempted murder, and all the cops who fired should have been charged.
Until then, the police no longer really exist.
The have uniforms, guns, and they are driving around, but no one can have any confidence in them or any of the legal system, that failed to prosecute the Blake shooting.

The Rittenhouse case just makes it worse.
It clearly IS illegal for a 17 year old to carry a rifle, (when not at a range, under adult supervision, and not hunting with a valid permit).

I do not see a solution to this now.
The police, courts, etc., have drawn a line in the sand that can not be tolerated.
They no longer are honest, valid, truthful, or even remotely useful.

 

[Lakhota]

No, the rioters were correct, and the problem is not training police properly, and using rules of engagement from the military, that are illegal for the police to use on civilians.
The half a dozens shots into Blake at close range were all 2nd degree attempted murder, and all the cops who fired should have been charged.
Until then, the police no longer really exist.
The have uniforms, guns, and they are driving around, but no one can have any confidence in them or any of the legal system, that failed to prosecute the Blake shooting.

The Rittenhouse case just makes it worse.
It clearly IS illegal for a 17 year old to carry a rifle, (when not at a range, under adult supervision, and not hunting with a valid permit).

I do not see a solution to this now.
The police, courts, etc., have drawn a line in the sand that can not be tolerated.
They no longer are honest, valid, truthful, or even remotely useful.

Amen!

 

[Rigby5]

You are the one who is wrong. This, or any court case, isn’t about overarching social goals. It was about simple justice. Did Kyle have cause to believe the four criminals ( and yes, all four were convicted criminals) intended to cause him serious bodily injury or kill him. That was what the entire trial was about, nothing more once the gun possession charge was dropped. Based upon the evidence and testimony the answer to that question was YES. That being the case a not guilty verdict was the only just verdict. In no state does the simple action of carrying a firearm openly legally allow others to attack that person.

Wrong.
Kyle was deliberately in the commission of an obvious crime.
Which was attempting to intimidate people with a rifle.
Everyone and anyone then had the right to use deadly force against Rittenhouse in order to eliminate that deadly threat.

But the fact the court was incredibly biased in the favor of Rittenhouse was obvious, as soon as the judge illegally dropped the obvious charge of Rittenhouse of being a minor in possession of a rifle.
The judge should be removed from the bench for that.

And YES, in EVERY state, carrying a rifle around to intimidate people IS valid grounds for the use of deadly force to eliminate that lethal threat.
The problem was the police should have immediately arrested him, and they didn't.

 

[Lakhota]

‘BE ARMED, BE DANGEROUS’: FAR-RIGHT REPS REJOICE OVER RITTENHOUSE​

 

[Soupnazi630]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

He is quite correct and you are wrong.

It only upheld pre - existing self defense laws.

It is indeed justice

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Kyle was deliberately in the commission of an obvious crime.
Which was attempting to intimidate people with a rifle.
Everyone and anyone then had the right to use deadly force against Rittenhouse in order to eliminate that deadly threat.

But the fact the court was incredibly biased in the favor of Rittenhouse was obvious, as soon as the judge illegally dropped the obvious charge of Rittenhouse of being a minor in possession of a rifle.
The judge should be removed from the bench for that.

And YES, in EVERY state, carrying a rifle around to intimidate people IS valid grounds for the use of deadly force to eliminate that lethal threat.
The problem was the police should have immediately arrested him, and they didn't.

That is insanely stupid and wrong.

Carrying a rifle is not intimidation and no one had a right to attack him. It is not grounds to use force against anyone anywhere and you sir are an outright liar.

Your only real disagreement is based on your love of mob violence.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong. Had Blake not been shot, there is a very real chance that he would have stabbed someone inside the car. That whole “for no reason” canard is itself just liberal dishonesty.

Whatever reason the rioting mob had for being there and doing their arson show, the fact is that they were in the wrong. Did you know that arson is a dangerous crime? It’s true! You could even look it up.

Also, Kyle was charged with a crime for possession of that rifle. That charge got dismissed because it turns out it WASN’T Illegal for him to possess it. Stooopid prosecutors.

Thank God Kyle HAD that rifle. Thank God this Constitutional Republic HAS the 2nd Amendment. It probably saved Kyle’s life.
This case ought to be a boon for the preservation of gun rights in America.

I saw the video, and Blake was obviously no threat to anyone.

Burning garbage in a dumpster is not arson, and arson is definitely warranted when the police failed to defend the rights of Blake.

Yes it IS illegal for someone under 18 to be in possession of a rifle when not at a range, under adult supervision, or hunting with a hunting permit.
The judge clearly rules totally and completely wrong, and can only have been deliberately lying in order to bias the case.

After Kyle deliberately went 20 miles out of his way with a rifle, the best outcome would have been if he has been shot and killed by the police.
Then there would have been less reason to believe police are racist in Kenosha.
Which they obviously are, if you had ever been to Kenosha.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I saw the video, and Blake was obviously no threat to anyone.

Burning garbage in a dumpster is not arson, and arson is definitely warranted when the police failed to defend the rights of Blake.

Yes it IS illegal for someone under 18 to be in possession of a rifle when not at a range, under adult supervision, or hunting with a hunting permit.
The judge clearly rules totally and completely wrong, and can only have been deliberately lying in order to bias the case.

After Kyle deliberately went 20 miles out of his way with a rifle, the best outcome would have been if he has been shot and killed by the police.
Then there would have been less reason to believe police are racist in Kenosha.
Which they obviously are, if you had ever been to Kenosha.

Setting fire to garbage in a dumpster IS ARSON.

He was in his own community with that rifle and he did not travel twnety miles with it you twit;.

There is no evidence they are racist and you are a liar

 

[Rigby5]

He is quite correct and you are wrong.

It only upheld pre - existing self defense laws.

It is indeed justice

Wrong.
You can't bring a rifle to a riot/demonstration and then claim self defense.
You bring a rifle that far from your home only because you want to shoot someone.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
You can't bring a rifle to a riot/demonstration and then claim self defense.
You bring a rifle that far from your home only because you want to shoot someone.

Yes you can the law allows for self defense if you make a good faith effort to retreat which he DID.

You know nothing of gthe law and are lying and making crap as you go AS ALWAYS

 

[Soupnazi630]

Rittenhouse created the danger and then claimed he was defending himself from the danger - that he created.

False

He did not create the riot

 

[Rigby5]

That is insanely stupid and wrong.

Carrying a rifle is not intimidation and no one had a right to attack him. It is not grounds to use force against anyone anywhere and you sir are an outright liar.

Your only real disagreement is based on your love of mob violence.

Since Kyle could easily have killed anyone at any moment, he was a clear and present danger to everyone,
So then anyone there could legally and should have just killed in outright and ended the threat he deliberately posed.

Mob violence is the basis of all democratic republics, when government corruption ruins the rule of law.
1776 was mob violence that also was warranted due to government corruption.
There now is no turning back.
Government has taken it side against justice, so no longer is valid, but an illegal threat instead.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
You can't go to a riot out of state, with a rifle, and claim "self defense".
It is not like he had property there to defend, or that the rioters had rifles.

He did NOT go out of state with a rifle .

you are MASSIVELY ignorant and uninformed

WHen people call for defunding the police yes you do have the right to go defend others property you cannot have it both ways

More than one of the rioters had guns

 

[Soupnazi630]

Since Kyle could easily have killed anyone at any moment, he was a clear and present danger to everyone,
So then anyone there could legally and should have just killed in outright and ended the threat he deliberately posed.

Mob violence is the basis of all democratic republics, when government corruption ruins the rule of law.
1776 was mob violence that also was warranted due to government corruption.
There now is no turning back.
Government has taken it side against justice, so no longer is valid, but an illegal threat instead.

Wrong could have done something does not equal clear and present danger. Anyone driving a car can easily kill anyone they see. That does NOT give anyone the right to shoot a driver nor do they have gthe right to shoot anyone who sikply has a gun.

MOB violence is no such basis for civilization igt is a crime and a threat to all. There was no warranted mob or riot here. It was also not a mob in 1776 it was organized military resistance.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
The riot/demonstration was about the police shooting Blake, a Black person, half a dozens times, at close range, for no reason.
So Rittenhouse was a bout preserving slavery, and doing it by intimidating people with a rifle.
That is identical to the intimidation of a lynch mob or cross burners.

But what is worst about this insane verdict, is that now it will be impossible to prevent gun control.
My argument against gun control was always that they guns are not the problem, and instead we simply have to incarcerate those who would abuse firearms.
But now I can not use that argument any more,
The case against Kyle was about as air tight as any case can be, any yet racism made it fail, so then the argument against gun control then fails as well.
If a 17 year old kid who could not even legally possess a rifle on his own, can beat these murders and shootings, then there is no argument left to defend gun possession at all.
The reaction is going to be assured gun control now, and there is nothing we now can do to stop it.

The shooting of Blake SEVEN times at close range was for very good reason and JUSTIFIED>

The riot was based on lies and false pretenses like all BLM riots.

The case against rittenhouse was non existant. He acted in self defense.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes you can the law allows for self defense if you make a good faith effort to retreat which he DID.

You know nothing of gthe law and are lying and making crap as you go AS ALWAYS

Wrong.
He was still in range to shoot and kill at will, so then he was still an immediate lethal threat to everyone,
So then they were the ones with the valid right of self defense, to end the deadly threat Rittenhouse posed to everyone.
He entirely provoked the situation by illegally bringing the rifle.
He deserved to be immediately shot for that.

 

[Rigby5]

False

He did not create the riot

Correct, that he did not create the riot, the police did by trying to murder Blake.
But clearly Rittenhouse deliberately attempted to threaten everyone at the riot by bringing the rifle.
So he did create a deadly threat to everyone there.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
He was still in range to shoot and kill at will, so then he was still an immediate lethal threat to everyone,
So then they were the ones with the valid right of self defense, to end the deadly threat Rittenhouse posed to everyone.
He entirely provoked the situation by illegally bringing the rifle.
He deserved to be immediately shot for that.

I am correct YOU are wrong.

Being in range holding a gun IS NOT a CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT.
He had the right to self defense establiushed by ther fact that HE retreated and sought police assitance THEY did not

No he did not deservae any such thing.

You do not have the right to riot. Your entire claim is based on fallacies

 

[Soupnazi630]

Correct, that he did not create the riot, the police did by trying to murder Blake.
But clearly Rittenhouse deliberately attempted to threaten everyone at the riot by bringing the rifle.
So he did create a deadly threat to everyone there.

They shot blake in justifieddefense of themselves and others.

Rittenhouse did not threaten anyone. BLM has no right or moral high ground to stand unopposed.