Trump should pardon the Kenosha Kid

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
62,962
Reaction score
13,162
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Attention, everyone: JoeB131 is pro-prisoner rape.

I can't for the life of me imagine how you think you're a decent human being.
Gee, Edward Gunnerhands, I don't work up a lot of sympathy for murderers when they get what's coming to them.

He wanted to hang with rapists, now he gets to be their prison bitch.
You really hate it that a pedo, a serial abuser, and a Commie were shot, don't you? Which shooting broke your heart the most?
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
62,962
Reaction score
13,162
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Dude, I've seen the tape.... he's just randomly shooting... he's not practicing good fire control... and I carried that kind of weapon for years when I was in the army.
No, he was firing directly to his left toward the ground, not down the street. If you are right handed, that is the direction of the muzzle when you are belly carrying a rifle. You are simply incorrect.

But he wasn't a CCW holder. His ownership of that gun was illegal because he was underage and he was in violation of the city's curfew order by being out there.
I was referring to and replying to Anathema being a CCW holder, not Rittenhouse, however, the points stands regarding self-defense. Whether or not he had the right to have the gun is a separate issue from whether or not he acted in self-defense. You live in an anti-gun nutty state much like NY and CA. My concealed weapons permit is good in just about every state in this country with the exception of CA, NY, IL and a state or two in the wacko NE. You and your kind are in the super minority with regards to gun ownership, gun rights and citizens rights to protect themselves with firearms.
Not a single damn one of these anti-self-defense freaks has a thing to say about Grosskreutz illegally carrying a weapon.
 

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
17,518
Reaction score
2,141
Points
245
Location
New England
Odd how your views here align perfectly with the anti-2A, anti-self-defense left.
Believe it or not, the anti-2A crowd does get something right once in a while. Not often, but in this case they’re right.

KR went to Kenosha looking for a fight. We all know that. Just with that knowledge he would have a difficult time getting me to find his actions appropriate. He brought (or was given) a weapon he shouldn’t have had by every version of state firearms laws I’m familiar with. He used it to menace a crowd he knew would be hostile to him. He incited a conflict and when it turned in him he took a human life.

As a martial artist, a CCW holder and a self-defense practitioner, EVERYTHING about that last paragraph is contrary to what I believe in. KR acted recklessly, with ill intent, and outside of basic common sense in addition to the laws of the city of Kenosha and the Stste of Wisconsin.

He needs to pay the price for those crimes and lapses in judgement. Those of us who practice self-defense properly need to distance ourselves from him and his actions. Otherwise we will be painted with the same brush he is.

I have no love for ANTIFA, BLM, or any of these other groups of hoodlums and rioters. I’d love to see them removed from Society; but we can’t stoop to their level to do so, or we become no better than them.
Literally everything here is horseshit.
 

DBA

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
4,112
Reaction score
3,677
Points
1,940
Odd how your views here align perfectly with the anti-2A, anti-self-defense left.
Believe it or not, the anti-2A crowd does get something right once in a while. Not often, but in this case they’re right.

KR went to Kenosha looking for a fight. We all know that. Just with that knowledge he would have a difficult time getting me to find his actions appropriate. He brought (or was given) a weapon he shouldn’t have had by every version of state firearms laws I’m familiar with. He used it to menace a crowd he knew would be hostile to him. He incited a conflict and when it turned in him he took a human life.

As a martial artist, a CCW holder and a self-defense practitioner, EVERYTHING about that last paragraph is contrary to what I believe in. KR acted recklessly, with ill intent, and outside of basic common sense in addition to the laws of the city of Kenosha and the Stste of Wisconsin.

He needs to pay the price for those crimes and lapses in judgement. Those of us who practice self-defense properly need to distance ourselves from him and his actions. Otherwise we will be painted with the same brush he is.

I have no love for ANTIFA, BLM, or any of these other groups of hoodlums and rioters. I’d love to see them removed from Society; but we can’t stoop to their level to do so, or we become no better than them.
None of this matters in the case of self-defense. Rittenhouse trying to avoid his attackers by running. It was reasonable for Rittenhouse to feel threatened as he was being chased down the street by an angry mob and was attacked when he fell on the ground. Rittenhouse was innocent of anything other than self-defense as he was running away from the mob. He was most certainly facing an imminent threat by all accounts. His response was proportional given as he only fired one shot at each attacker. He didn’t unload his magazine into the mob, despite how some left-wing “news” sources have tried to spin his post-attack warning shots into the ground from his non-aggressive belly carry rifle position....one of the positions us gun owners and the military have been taught for safely carrying a loaded rifle.
 
Last edited:

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
130,061
Reaction score
14,519
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
No, he was firing directly to his left toward the ground, not down the street. If you are right handed, that is the direction of the muzzle when you are belly carrying a rifle. You are simply incorrect.
If I handled a rifle like that in basic, my DI would have had me doing pushups for eternity.

I was referring to and replying to Anathema being a CCW holder, not Rittenhouse, however, the points stands regarding self-defense. Whether or not he had the right to have the gun is a separate issue from whether or not he acted in self-defense.
No, it really isn't. He should have never been there. He should have never had a gun. He never should have been out there after a lawful curfew was invoked. His argument that he was "Defending himself" falls flat when you realize he provoked the situation where the shooting occurred.

He's going to jail...

You live in an anti-gun nutty state much like NY and CA. My concealed weapons permit is good in just about every state in this country with the exception of CA, NY, IL and a state or two in the wacko NE. You and your kind are in the super minority with regards to gun ownership, gun rights and citizens rights to protect themselves with firearms.
Actually, most Americans favor stronger gun control.


The reason why we haven't gotten there is the gun nuts are much more vocal and most Americans don't realize just how lax our gun laws are.

Instead, when some crazy person like Holmes or Cruz or Lanza or Rittenhouse engages in a mass shooting, the majority ask in horror 'How was he able to get a gun'? And then we lose interest long before someone tells us.

The small gun nut minority, on the other hand, is focused on this all the time, keeping those gun laws lax.
 

DBA

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
4,112
Reaction score
3,677
Points
1,940
f I handled a rifle like that in basic, my DI would have had me doing pushups for eternity.
LOL...you mean like this? You have NO idea what you are talking about. My relatives are all ex-military. Granted we are talking Lt. Col. and Col. level folks, but I was taught from a young age how to carry a rifle. This is certainly one of those ways when NOT on alert. Other than a sling arm carry with your rifle on your back with the muzzle pointed up or down, this is one of the least threatening, but safe, way to carry a loaded rifle. Just another added point for Rittenhouse.

https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/m...aws.com/public/FEKUAXOCXZFK5KD5TXC6WZWLWY.jpg

No, it really isn't. He should have never been there. He should have never had a gun. He never should have been out there after a lawful curfew was invoked. His argument that he was "Defending himself" falls flat when you realize he provoked the situation where the shooting occurred.
Nope. If a heroin addict with a shot of heroin is out after the nutso CA governor imposed curfew, does he waive his right to self-defense? He can certainly be charged with other crimes, but he doesn’t forgo his right to self-defense. How exactly did Rittenhouse provoke the situation at that moment? He was running down the street from an angry mob. He was in imminent danger.

Actually, most Americans favor stronger gun control.
If they take the poll in Chicago, NY or LA, sure they do. These folks don’t have a clue about guns and have never seen one, much less owned one. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by those who have guns that should not have guns. Making the law more stringent only eliminates those that were lawful in the first place, not those committing gun crimes.

Left-wing logic is not logic at all.

BTW, there is absolutely no way you were a true Republican a decade or so ago as you claim. You are anti-religious, anti-gun and fiscally liberal. Maybe you got kicked in the head by a donkey or something, otherwise, I don’t buy it.
 

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
17,518
Reaction score
2,141
Points
245
Location
New England
f I handled a rifle like that in basic, my DI would have had me doing pushups for eternity.
LOL...you mean like this? You have NO idea what you are talking about. My relatives are all ex-military. Granted we are talking Lt. Col. and Col. level folks, but I was taught from a young age how to carry a rifle. This is certainly one of those ways when NOT on alert. Other than a sling arm carry with your rifle on your back with the muzzle pointed up or down, this is one of the least threatening, but safe, way to carry a loaded rifle. Just another added point for Rittenhouse.

https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/m...aws.com/public/FEKUAXOCXZFK5KD5TXC6WZWLWY.jpg

No, it really isn't. He should have never been there. He should have never had a gun. He never should have been out there after a lawful curfew was invoked. His argument that he was "Defending himself" falls flat when you realize he provoked the situation where the shooting occurred.
Nope. If a heroin addict with a shot of heroin is out after the nutso CA governor imposed curfew, does he waive his right to self-defense? He can certainly be charged with other crimes, but he doesn’t forgo his right to self-defense. How exactly did Rittenhouse provoke the situation at that moment? He was running down the street from an angry mob. He was in imminent danger.

Actually, most Americans favor stronger gun control.
If they take the poll in Chicago, NY or LA, sure they do. These folks don’t have a clue about guns and have never seen one, much less owned one. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by those who have guns that should not have guns. Making the law more stringent only eliminates those that were lawful in the first place, not those committing gun crimes.

Left-wing logic is not logic at all.

BTW, there is absolutely no way you were a true Republican a decade or so ago as you claim. You are anti-religious, anti-gun and fiscally liberal. Maybe you got kicked in the head by a donkey or something, otherwise, I don’t buy it.
Joey is a Stalinist.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
62,962
Reaction score
13,162
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
You really hate it that a pedo, a serial abuser, and a Commie were shot, don't you? Which shooting broke your heart the most?
None of them deserved to get shot... but I know it breaks your heart that this kid did what you'd never have the balls to do, Edward Gunnerhands.
Defend himself? Don't project your weakness on others. Not everyone's a sissy bedwetter like leftists are.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
62,962
Reaction score
13,162
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Not a single damn one of these anti-self-defense freaks has a thing to say about Grosskreutz illegally carrying a weapon.
Grosskreutz didn't shoot anyone.
Utterly immaterial. It was illegal for him to carry a firearm.

But you don't give a shit. You wish he'd murdered the kid.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
130,061
Reaction score
14,519
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
LOL...you mean like this? You have NO idea what you are talking about. My relatives are all ex-military. Granted we are talking Lt. Col. and Col. level folks, but I was taught from a young age how to carry a rifle. This is certainly one of those ways when NOT on alert. Other than a sling arm carry with your rifle on your back with the muzzle pointed up or down, this is one of the least threatening, but safe, way to carry a loaded rifle. Just another added point for Rittenhouse.
Most officers at that rank wouldn't carry a rifle, they'd carry a pistol. Nope, what Shittenhouse was doing wasn't safe... He fired wildly into a crowd and killed two people and wounded another.

Nope. If a heroin addict with a shot of heroin is out after the nutso CA governor imposed curfew, does he waive his right to self-defense? He can certainly be charged with other crimes, but he doesn’t forgo his right to self-defense. How exactly did Rittenhouse provoke the situation at that moment? He was running down the street from an angry mob. He was in imminent danger.
Of what, being arrested? He just shot a guy. The crowd was chasing him to hold him for the cops. He tripped, panicked, and shot the two people closest to him. He's SOOOOOO going to prison.

If they take the poll in Chicago, NY or LA, sure they do. These folks don’t have a clue about guns and have never seen one, much less owned one. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by those who have guns that should not have guns. Making the law more stringent only eliminates those that were lawful in the first place, not those committing gun crimes.
The vast majority of gun crimes are committed in the home, with a gun that was in the home.

BTW, there is absolutely no way you were a true Republican a decade or so ago as you claim. You are anti-religious, anti-gun and fiscally liberal. Maybe you got kicked in the head by a donkey or something, otherwise, I don’t buy it.
Well, I've always been anti-religious, pretty much from the day the idiot nun told me God had a reason for my mother to suffer for a year and a half from cancer before she died. There are just as many nuts on the religious left as the religious right.

I used to be pro-gun, until I started to talking to gun nuts. The ones who think even the most common sense gun law, like actually doing background checks to make sure you aren't selling to crazy people, because some day, we might need to take our guns and shoot soldiers and cops.

As for being "fiscally liberal".. Um, yeah, this funny thing happened. We tried it your way, and we got FOUR RECESSIONS (81, 90, 01 and 08). And when one of those recessions comes, the One Percenters always find a way to screw you.

I've often said, the day I stopped being a Republican was when my asshole boss screwed me after an injury and said, "That's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union."
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
130,061
Reaction score
14,519
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Utterly immaterial. It was illegal for him to carry a firearm.

But you don't give a shit. You wish he'd murdered the kid.
Well, it would have saved us the cost of a trial. But I wouldn't want to deprive the Columbia Correctional Institute of their Future Prison Bitch.

Defend himself? Don't project your weakness on others. Not everyone's a sissy bedwetter like leftists are.
Actually, here's how he could have defended himself.

Stay home in Antioch. There were no demonstrations going on in Antioch.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
62,962
Reaction score
13,162
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Utterly immaterial. It was illegal for him to carry a firearm.

But you don't give a shit. You wish he'd murdered the kid.
Well, it would have saved us the cost of a trial. But I wouldn't want to deprive the Columbia Correctional Institute of their Future Prison Bitch.
You really are sad that a Commie, a pedo, and a serial abuser were shot.

Naturally. If there's a wrong side to an issue, you jump on it with both feet and claim it as yours.
Defend himself? Don't project your weakness on others. Not everyone's a sissy bedwetter like leftists are.
Actually, here's how he could have defended himself.

Stay home in Antioch. There were no demonstrations going on in Antioch.
The First Amendment's freedom of assembly says he can go where he wants.

I know you hate the Constitution and want to see it destroyed, but tough shit, Comrade.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
130,061
Reaction score
14,519
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
You really are sad that a Commie, a pedo, and a serial abuser were shot.

Naturally. If there's a wrong side to an issue, you jump on it with both feet and claim it as yours.
The wrong side is the one that puts an assault rifle in the hands of an unstable kid and lets him roam the streets shooting people.

So what if he shot a mother or a stockbroker instead of a guy who got into some juvenile trouble? Would that be bad then?

The First Amendment's freedom of assembly says he can go where he wants.
He wasn't there to express his opinions... and no, he really didn't have the right to go there. There was a curfew in place, and he was breaking it.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
OP
RandomPoster

RandomPoster

Platinum Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
1,438
Points
970
Trump should pardon the Kenosha Kid.
Trump can only pardon federal crimes. The kid is charged with murder in state court.

There's not much Trump can do.
Perhaps he can get Barr to take the case and make it a federal matter and then pardon him.
Seems unlikely. As the crime clearly falls under State jurisdiction. The weapons charges, sure. But not the murders.
One of the people he shot is half-Hispanic. He could say it is a federal hate crime.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
Trump should pardon the Kenosha Kid.
Trump can only pardon federal crimes. The kid is charged with murder in state court.

There's not much Trump can do.
Perhaps he can get Barr to take the case and make it a federal matter and then pardon him.
Seems unlikely. As the crime clearly falls under State jurisdiction. The weapons charges, sure. But not the murders.
One of the people he shot is half-Hispanic. He could say it is a federal hate crime.
He could. But that would be an additional federal charge. Not a replacement of state charges.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top