Why we dont agree on Rittenhouse Case

[Calypso Jones]

We will first have to agree that the left only has the MSM version of the case, and that righties have both versions.

I don't have a problem with that.

 

[AntonToo]

Depends on who you define are "wings".
Yes there were the FEW who painted Kyle as a saint. But there are MASSES that wanted him found guilty regardless of evidence.
Most conservatives, like myself, understand this was a very tragic and avoidable event. The kid was obviously in the wrong for carrying a loaded weapon and running around with it in such a high emotional atmosphere. We also know he was 17 years old. And therefore foolish.
He is guilty of stupidity, gross stupidity. But that has no bearing on whether he was guilty of murder.
Fortunately you can't be convicted for being stupid. You have to actually commit the crime, and be proven in court.
Those who don't believe this - are tyrannist.

He is stupid, but where are the laws by not-stupid lawmakers to stop these minors from running around with military grade weapons. What the ****.

 

[Calypso Jones]

If the law allows an immature 17 year old SWAT team wannabe to travel interstate with a loaded AR 15 assault rifle and openly carry it into a melee then there is something seriously wrong with the laws in the state of Wisconsin.

To me you lose your right to a self defense ruling when you place yourself in a riot like this with a loaded firearm.
The law needs to be changed.

wow. Like clockwork. False narrative #2

WHY we must fight the left's lying narrative on the Rittenhouse verdict

The media and leftist politician lies must continue and that will trickle down into the low info supporters. We have to counteract those false narratives...and do it starting now. https://thelibertydaily.com/three-narratives-that-must-be-debunked-following-the-rittenhouse-verdict/ False...

www.usmessageboard.com

YOU, Sir, are a dedicated leftist.

 

[BackAgain]

There is a good reason why lefties and righties do not agree on the Rittenhouse case. We have each gained our perspective on the case from news sources, but we don't all take advantage of the same sources. There has been a very broad range of news and information available that ranges from politically motivated propaganda, to evidence of what really happened on the night of the shooting. Those who limited their news sources to politically motivated MSM sources are only able to see the case as engineered by the MSM. Those who took advantage of the additional news available beyond the MSM were able to get a much broader understanding of what happened.

I assume many have. When I first saw images of this kid carrying his rifle at the scene of an ongoing riot, my first ASSumption was that he fancied himself a vigilante. The press coverage didn’t help by piling on misinformation.

but as things turned out, I didn’t blindly then proceed to accept the slanted coverage. He wasn’t an out of towner bringing a gun to some other town’s riot. His dad lives there.

he didn’t “bring the gun from out of state.”

he wasn’t an “active shooter.”

He wasn’t a white supremacist.

he didn’t chase any “victim”. The converse was true.

the reality of this case came out not from puss-poor coverage by so-called “reporters.” It came out by the trial process.

My disagreement with any liberal who attacks the verdict is not political. It’s factual. It’s a matter of fairness, logic and justice.

 

[EvMetro]

If the law allows an immature 17 year old SWAT team wannabe to travel interstate with a loaded AR 15 assault rifle and openly carry it into a melee then there is something seriously wrong with the laws in the state of Wisconsin.

To me you lose your right to a self defense ruling when you place yourself in a riot like this with a loaded firearm.
The law needs to be changed.

You have failed to demonstrate that you read and understood the opening post. Evasion.

 

[EvMetro]

By broader you mean racist. The fact is that Rittenhouse did not live in Kenosha so he had no business being there. He also had no business with a rifle. He was not a police officer. There is no law in any state that allows a 17 year old to carry a gun. Apparently your sources need to be informed.

This is the msm version that I referred to in the open post. Do not conflate the msm version of the story with what really happened. You have failed to demonstrate that you read and understood the opening post.

 

[Calypso Jones]

My disagreement with any liberal who attacks the verdict is not political. It’s factual. It’s a matter of fairness, logic and justice.

that last sentence....interesting. Clearly leftists and right wingers see fairness, logic and justice in different ways.

There is a definite disagreement on the definition or the concept of fairness. How would one of our leftist brothers/sisters define 'fairness'.

 

[Who_Me?]

You have failed to demonstrate that you read and understood the opening post. Evasion.

You have failed to demonstrate that you read and understood the opening post. Evasion.

You have failed to apply common sense when evaluating the laws in the state of Wisconsin. The verdict was an acceptable interpretation of the law as it stands today, my point is that the law is ludicrous.

 

[EvMetro]

I assume many have. When I first saw images of this kid carrying his rifle at the scene of an ongoing riot, my first ASSumption was that he fancied himself a vigilante. The press coverage didn’t help by piling on misinformation.

but as things turned out, I didn’t blindly then proceed to accept the slanted coverage. He wasn’t an out of towner bringing a gun to some other town’s riot. His dad lives there.

he didn’t “bring the gun from out of state.”

he wasn’t an “active shooter.”

He wasn’t a white supremacist.

he didn’t chase any “victim”. The converse was true.

the reality of this case came out not from puss-poor coverage by so-called “reporters.” It came out by the trial process.

My disagreement with any liberal who attacks the verdict is not political. It’s factual. It’s a matter of fairness, logic and justice.

It is possible that many lefties would support this if they were not limited to the msm narrative

 

[Calypso Jones]

Leftist Morals vs. Rightist Morals: Who Holds the Moral High Ground?

A comparison of liberal and conservative morality, with a discussion of which side, if either, really holds the moral high ground.

politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com

BackAgain EvMetro You might want to give this a quick look.

 

[WEATHER53]

Why we don’t care is that the jury authority has spoken and other people’s feelings don’t mean shit other than to toss out another bogus emotional display of displeased feelings.

 

[Calypso Jones]

WEATHER53 LOLOl you might want to take a quick look at that article too. Post 70.

 

[Calypso Jones]

From the article on the difference in the views of leftists and rightwingers on the concept of FAIRNESS. Don't miss it.

fairness, the interpretations differ between liberals and conservatives: with regard to fairness, the leftist version of course emphasizes equality of outcome, due to a presumably compassionate desire to see everyone as essentially the same. Rightist conceptions of fairness place more emphasis on equality of rights, of protection under the law, and of opportunity—or at least see fairness along these lines without the admixture of equality of outcome. Further, newish leftist ideas of cultural and moral relativism, again a result of presumed liberal compassion, result in a reluctance to see moral distinctions or to see anyone as moral inferiors, except for the cultural Marxist oppressor class (white people) and heretics (especially right-wingers). With regard to non-harming, the left appears to be more inclined to include even inadvertent hurting of another’s feelings under that heading, especially if the hurt feelings are of a leftist.

 

[WEATHER53]

I watched almost every minute of the trial.

That is where I got my information from. If EVERYONE did that, there would be a lot more who agree he was innocent.

You have to take out your political ideology, and ignore the noise in the media. WATCH THE TRIAL. Thats what the jurors did. Thats why they reached the right decision.

Liberals did not watch the trial because they did not want to receive information that proved innocence
So they stayed on the outside, got their sustenance from MSM feedings, and went with feelings of armed white guy defending himself had to be guilty

 

[Calypso Jones]

The left cares about the two criminals.....the child rapist and the woman beater, MORE than they care about Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse if part of the oppressor class...white male....conservative.

 

[EvMetro]

You have failed to apply common sense when evaluating the laws in the state of Wisconsin. The verdict was an acceptable interpretation of the law as it stands today, my point is that the law is ludicrous.

This thread is not about the interpretation of any laws, it is about why we disagree. The version of the case that you have is based upon the political narrative that was engineered by the msm, mine is based upon a much broader base of news, facts, propaganda, and media.

By evading the opening post, you actually validate it. You are stamping your feet and insisting that the msm is the truth, but you are afraid to admit it.

 

[eddiew37]

I don't have a problem with that.

Oh you didn't know Kyle hung out with the proud boys before the killings?? Judge said that couldn't be admitted in court The white power republicans White crackers

 

[WEATHER53]

No “agreement” necessary or warranted. Not even a discussion topic
It’s like creating a thread about agreeing or disagreeing that the sun rose
Facts of jury verdict avoided, feelings of how it should have been the way Libs wanted fully engaged.

 

[WEATHER53]

WEATHER53 LOLOl you might want to take a quick look at that article too. Post 70.

I responded hastily and improperly to you and have deleted it.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I responded hastily and improperly to you and have deleted it.

No offense taken. RIghtwingers don't need leftists to argue. We can argue among ourselves..... without losing our sanity or self control.