American Politics

[Sanity Check]

Joe Biden master race.

 

[xi0]

Is this the future of america under Joe Biden?

I guess this is the type of woman democrats need to date and marry to support the movement?

Is that how it works?

No, it's not how it works

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

She* looks like the daughter* of Devin Townsend during his Strapping Young Lad days.










* total assumptions

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 23, 2021 ---

Kyle Rittenhouse says he's 'not a racist person,' backs Black Lives Matter in Fox News appearance

"This case has nothing to do with race... It had to do with the right to self-defense," Rittenhouse told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

www.usatoday.com

Lmao I wish I could be a fly on the wall during the stern talking-to he got after dropping that bomb.

I believe he believes it.

OTOH, could just be obligatory at this point.



The question in either regard is 'why bother?'

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021 ---

I still think the law's set up so white people can claim self defense as long as it's not against white supremacists or wealthy people. It's not really just claiming self-defense that'll help as much as skin color would.

&

The law is definitely set up that way though, always has been otherwise white people who kill Black people would be punished, and Black people wouldn't be in jail for selling weed, or still be in jail when companies are selling weed now.

Why, yes, YES. That's EXACTLY how the law is written. Damn, you guys aren't supposed to know!

Basically the laws and politicians will work in whatever way necessary that doesn't give Black people advantage. Had a Black person survived meeting the cops armed, they'd have likely been shot by cops after self-defense, no question asked. By some crazy chance they survived that, they would have been charged as guilty, and the arguments used to acquit Kyle would have likely been ignored or somehow turned over.

Case closed, your honor. You can't argue with cold, hard facts like this.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021 ---

But his victims supported BLM, if not Floyd.

And this is relevant how?

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021 ---

You won't actually find any law that is written in such a way. The issue is in how the law is implemented or how minorities are perceived... And still, this specific case involves kyle, a white dude, shooting other white dudes. While he did show up to a riot over the death of a black person to the police, none of his victims were black...

shhhhhhhh, facts don't matter.

Other fun racial facts about this case:

- the ONLY person that was being remotely racist was indeed the white clown non-victim shot by Kyle yelling N------ repeatedly on camera
- the car lot (that Kyle was attempting to protect) was owned by.... Indian brothers (so racisms!)
- Kyle *willingly* turned his phone over to the authorities in its entirety and not a single racial component could be found, not one comment, text, conversation, based as meme... nothing.
- whites fighting whites



But, yeah, racysmzzzz

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021 ---

Outliers?

Yes, outliers. High-profile cases are not bulk of self-defense cases OFC. The ones that are pushed to the front are often misreported, and covered with a spin to get more eyeballs which is effectively, yes, race grifting. Case in point; the KR coverage, and even many a post in this forum. This way, big brains can run around saying "but but but but if he was black" with absolutely zero basis for actually knowing how that would play out other than pure, unadulterated speculation that is somehow used as confirmation (nothing actually confirmed, lulz) bias in their own twisted minds.

But this is how self defense cases in the US consistently play out.

Basis for this? A lot of cases play out like this case? Even our admin above admits this case isn't exactly a common occurrence, so what do you mean?

The law is set up so that you can claim self defense with as few barriers as humanly possible.

Well, anyone can CLAIM self-defense, but PROVING it is another thing entirely. But, yes, thank goodness in instances of obvious self-defense one doesn't have to prove they are innocent beyond all reasonable doubt. That's kind of the basis for our law, and it extends to every person of every type.

If you were minding your own business and I randomly walked up and pointed a gun at you and said I was going to kill you, fired a couple of shots, but you managed to pull an old Western on me and draw and kill me first, you'd be ecstatic the law would be on your side.

It's the natural conclusion of the lobbying that has been done over the past 60 years for gun rights and the second amendment.

Ironic we have to lobby for our own 2A, no?

I am not the one banging his head here lol,

Agree to disagree. Thousands of years of human history and hundreds of years of fact-based law do have something different to say about there being some amount of nuance to a self-defense case. Murder is murder, killing in self defense is something entirely different. So says the law, common sense, history, almost every culture ever, etc.

this is super easy... I mean, looking at the facts and video evidence of that night... are you telling me that if the shoe was on the other foot and any of the 3 people that kyle shot had killed kyle instead they wouldn't have had as good a case or an even better one than kyle when claiming self defense?

LOL, YES, that's exactly what I'd tell you. One person was legally, lethally, defending themselves and the others were the obvious aggressors. If Kyle had died from the result of their attacks, they'd be guilty of homicide. And a jury agrees with me (as do the actual facts, the dis-armed witness for the prosecution, and actual hard video evidence), that's the basis for their acquittal on the grounds of a legal self-defense.

I suppose it's important to stress that the people kyle shot weren't any better or substantially better than kyle in this regard, this entire case is a clash of the stupid and kyle's only merit is that he survived.

Whether this opinion is right or wrong has little basis for what happened. It's a GOOD thing you don't have to prove intelligence to a certain degree for the law to be at your defense. Basic competence in some instances, but not any intellectual minimum standards.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021 ---

Me waiting for the absolute outrage of the most recent carnage on the heels of Kyle's acquittal.

As well as the obvious downplaying of the obvious racist, racial components and talk about how certain people are unfairly targeted by the legal system and bail reform is SUPER important (it keepses certain people locked up too long - not the inverse of NOT ENOUGH, right?). Can't wait to hear that (it will probably be crickets either way) old chestnut.

Somehow, someway, an individual that I've been told would ABSOLUTELY be shot and killed rather than taken in alive was arrested/detained for an event that had 2.5x more death (and a greater multiple more injured) than the events with KR that night in Kenosha.

Why no outrage?

We know why no outrage.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021 ---

A great montage - *chef's kiss* to JD on this one.

In case you're wondering, he's an absolute progressive explaining why the media is an absolute joke - this is just one of many examples.

If you've taken news from any of the people in the montage, you're the greater fool.

 

[kkck]

Yes, outliers. High-profile cases are not bulk of self-defense cases OFC. The ones that are pushed to the front are often misreported, and covered with a spin to get more eyeballs which is effectively, yes, race grifting. Case in point; the KR coverage, and even many a post in this forum. This way, big brains can run around saying "but but but but if he was black" with absolutely zero basis for actually knowing how that would play out other than pure, unadulterated speculation that is somehow used as confirmation (nothing actually confirmed, lulz) bias in their own twisted minds.



Basis for this? A lot of cases play out like this case? Even our admin above admits this case isn't exactly a common occurrence, so what do you mean?



Well, anyone can CLAIM self-defense, but PROVING it is another thing entirely. But, yes, thank goodness in instances of obvious self-defense one doesn't have to prove they are innocent beyond all reasonable doubt. That's kind of the basis for our law, and it extends to every person of every type.

If you were minding your own business and I randomly walked up and pointed a gun at you and said I was going to kill you, fired a couple of shots, but you managed to pull an old Western on me and draw and kill me first, you'd be ecstatic the law would be on your side.



Ironic we have to lobby for our own 2A, no?



Agree to disagree. Thousands of years of human history and hundreds of years of fact-based law do have something different to say about there being some amount of nuance to a self-defense case. Murder is murder, killing in self defense is something entirely different. So says the law, common sense, history, almost every culture ever, etc.



LOL, YES, that's exactly what I'd tell you. One person was legally, lethally, defending themselves and the others were the obvious aggressors. If Kyle had died from the result of their attacks, they'd be guilty of homicide. And a jury agrees with me (as do the actual facts, the dis-armed witness for the prosecution, and actual hard video evidence), that's the basis for their acquittal on the grounds of a legal self-defense.



Whether this opinion is right or wrong has little basis for what happened. It's a GOOD thing you don't have to prove intelligence to a certain degree for the law to be at your defense. Basic competence in some instances, but not any intellectual minimum standards.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021 ---

Me waiting for the absolute outrage of the most recent carnage on the heels of Kyle's acquittal.

As well as the obvious downplaying of the obvious racist, racial components and talk about how certain people are unfairly targeted by the legal system and bail reform is SUPER important (it keepses certain people locked up too long - not the inverse of NOT ENOUGH, right?). Can't wait to hear that (it will probably be crickets either way) old chestnut.

Somehow, someway, an individual that I've been told would ABSOLUTELY be shot and killed rather than taken in alive was arrested/detained for an event that had 2.5x more death (and a greater multiple more injured) than the events with KR that night in Kenosha.

Why no outrage?

We know why no outrage.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2021 ---

A great montage - *chef's kiss* to JD on this one.

In case you're wondering, he's an absolute progressive explaining why the media is an absolute joke - this is just one of many examples.

If you've taken news from any of the people in the montage, you're the greater fool.

What are you even talking about? During the case the burden of proof was largely on the prosecution... Kyle didn't have to "prove" he was acting on self defense, it was the prosecutions job to prove he wasn't acting on self defense. And while that might be reasonable for self defense if you combine it with all the other stupid ways the law is set up what you have is... welp, this. Kyle was a 17 year old civilian playing vigilante and no gun license who walked into a riot armed with a motherfucking AR15 that a friend bought for him and stored and there was not a single law broken? Absurd.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

What are you even talking about?

I'm talking about the facts of the case. Which you have repeatedly misrepresented and gotten wrong. And haven't even addressed some of your biggest complaints about this case being way incorrect even though they were oft-repeated.

During the case the burden of proof was largely on the prosecution...

Yes, unfortunately for those prosecutors! lol Their incompetence is legendary in spite of the obvious evidence in Kyle's favor.

Kyle didn't have to "prove" he was acting on self defense,

You seem to forget the 'defense' component in the criminal trial.

it was the prosecutions job to prove he wasn't acting on self defense.

A job they failed. Resulting in an acquittal. You could argue the semantics of 'innocent' and 'not guilty' but don't waste your time. Kyle is legally NOT GUILTY (and he was EVIDENTLY NOT GUILTY prior to even being charged on account of footage that exonerated him). Because the defense prevailed, providing evidence he was acting in self-defense. It's irrefutable two people died and another got injured. The only way Kyle would be found not guilty with two deaths is if it wasn't his fault, or it was at his hand, but only as a result of, you guessed it, self-defense.

And while that might be reasonable for self defense if you combine it with all the other stupid ways the law is set up what you have is... welp, this.

What exactly is this? Be specific. All I read is vagaries in your replies. Yes, THIS somehow upsets you. What, specifically is the problem exactly?

Kyle was a 17 year old

Irrelevant. But your attempt to try and use his age against him. Same as you attempted to use the 'crossing state lines' number, or transporting a gun.

I'm assuming you're taking issue with near 18 year olds having access to guns. A topic of another conversation, but you wouldn't be here without 17 year olds with guns.

You have actually a 17yo using a firearm correctly - practicing, wielding, only drawing for a lethal threat, generally accurate shots, no bystanders hit in a crowd... all the components of a competent and safe arms owning/handling. All at OMG 17!!!

civilian

lol, and?

playing vigilante

There's no evidence of this. In fact there's evidence to the contrary.

and no gun license

Were any gun laws broken by Kyle? If not, what's your point here?

who walked into a riot

At least you're accurately describing the environment. And yet he had every right, and every reason to be there. Unlike the three amigos.

armed with a motherfucking AR15

Please explain the significance of the gun type

that a friend bought for him and stored and there was not a single law broken?

Actually, the friend may be looking at straw purchasing charges. I know this may be crazy to hear, but no amount of laws can preempt or prevent crime from happening.

Absurd.

Yes, indeed. Absurd that your outrage is selectively aimed at Kyle or that you're equating his behavior with the clear aggressors. The instigators (the ones actually attacking Kyle unprovoked), all pieces of human filth, are the ones to blame. That's an actual fact.

 

[M3J]

What are you even talking about? During the case the burden of proof was largely on the prosecution... Kyle didn't have to "prove" he was acting on self defense, it was the prosecutions job to prove he wasn't acting on self defense. And while that might be reasonable for self defense if you combine it with all the other stupid ways the law is set up what you have is... welp, this. Kyle was a 17 year old civilian playing vigilante and no gun license who walked into a riot armed with a motherfucking AR15 that a friend bought for him and stored and there was not a single law broken? Absurd.

Why are you still responding to him? X_X


Also, does Kyle legit support BLM? I don't know if he said that, but if he did and is still getting support from the right, then something's fishy.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Why are you still responding to him? X_X


Also, does Kyle legit support BLM? I don't know if he said that, but if he did and is still getting support from the right, then something's fishy.

Well, I know why YOU wouldn't want to respond to someone that points out you have very little substantive to add other than making unverifiable claims or repeating non-facts.

X_X

Maybe he isn't irretrievably lost however.




And, much has been said about Kyle being a flawed individual. By that extension his support of BLM is explained.

 

[kkck]

I'm talking about the facts of the case. Which you have repeatedly misrepresented and gotten wrong. And haven't even addressed some of your biggest complaints about this case being way incorrect even though they were oft-repeated.

I mean, I don't disagree with you in that the law and by extension the facts were on rittenhouse's case.

Yes, unfortunately for those prosecutors! lol Their incompetence is legendary in spite of the obvious evidence in Kyle's favor.

TBH I don't even believe the prosecution's apparent ineptitude had that much of an effect in the case. Of course, if it did then that would probably mean the facts were not on rittenhouse's side and the results of the trial were not in accordance to the law.

You seem to forget the 'defense' component in the criminal trial.

No? It's not the defense's job to "prove" innocence, it's the prosecution's job to prove guilt. The defense didn't have to prove during the case that kyle acted in self defense, they simply had to defend kyle from the prosecution's accusations.

A job they failed. Resulting in an acquittal. You could argue the semantics of 'innocent' and 'not guilty' but don't waste your time. Kyle is legally NOT GUILTY (and he was EVIDENTLY NOT GUILTY prior to even being charged on account of footage that exonerated him).

Yeah? I don't disagree with this.

What exactly is this? Be specific. All I read is vagaries in your replies. Yes, THIS somehow upsets you. What, specifically is the problem exactly?

Welp, consider how the the charges about him possessing a firearm while underaged were dismissed...Basically because he was older than 16 and the barrel size of his weapon. I had a few more things in mind when I wrote this but they are non specific to the case...

Irrelevant. But your attempt to try and use his age against him. Same as you attempted to use the 'crossing state lines' number, or transporting a gun.

I'm assuming you're taking issue with near 18 year olds having access to guns. A topic of another conversation, but you wouldn't be here without 17 year olds with guns.

It's absolutely relevant. A kid walking around with a gun just because is downright dystopian. Note that I am not saying it's illegal. And yeah, I do take issue with kids walking around with guns. And civilians walking around with guns in general.

You have actually a 17yo using a firearm correctly - practicing, wielding, only drawing for a lethal threat, generally accurate shots, no bystanders hit in a crowd... all the components of a competent and safe arms owning/handling. All at OMG 17!!!

Yes, terrifying, dystopian shit. Even in third world countries it's rare to see kids that are competent at guns.

There's no evidence of this. In fact there's evidence to the contrary.

You mean other than his armed presence at a riot he could have easily avoided ? Come on, the guy went there to play batman with guns. That's as clear cut as the result of the trial. It's the police's job to tear gas rioters into submission, not random civilians with guns...

Were any gun laws broken by Kyle? If not, what's your point here?

Not sure of how to respond to this because my comment was on rittenhouse not having a gun permit. What should happen here is that if you carry a gun without a permit you are committing a crime or misdemeanor at least. As in, without further incidents to aggravate the situation carrying a gun around without a permit should by itself be a problem.

At least you're accurately describing the environment. And yet he had every right, and every reason to be there. Unlike the three amigos.

I've never said this wasn't a riot. Heck, tear gas them an hose them down for all I care, that's the police's job. Also... at least the third and second guy that kyle shot thought kyle was an active shooter. Because surprise, he shot someone. They had every reason to think kyle was a threat. Let alone the fact that stopping an active shooter is an inherently heroic act. Regarding the first... it is worth noting that the actual start of the confrontation comes from rittenhouse and witnesses that as far as I can tell did not see the actual start.

Please explain the significance of the gun type

Welp, showing up to a powder keg of a situation you can easily avoid with an obvious much larger and much deadlier weapon (even on the technicality that rittenhouse couldn't get a different one apparently) obviously makes this worst. I don't think we will agree on this though.

Actually, the friend may be looking at straw purchasing charges. I know this may be crazy to hear, but no amount of laws can preempt or prevent crime from happening.

Welp, if there is any justice whatsoever here then if the friend gets charged then rittenhouse will also take his share of the blame on a straw purchase then.

Yes, indeed. Absurd that your outrage is selectively aimed at Kyle or that you're equating his behavior with the clear aggressors. The instigators (the ones actually attacking Kyle unprovoked), all pieces of human filth, are the ones to blame. That's an actual fact.

Unprovoked? You could make a case for the first guy that was shot given the absence of evidence otherwise but the other guys thought kyle was an active shooter. Can you blame them for not getting the memo that kyle was the good guy with a gun?

 

[xi0]

Also, does Kyle legit support BLM? I don't know if he said that, but if he did and is still getting support from the right, then something's fishy.

Fear not, no one believes that he supports BLM. His ilk is incapable of even supporting it's premise without equally simping for cops.

Not that I would want to give him that much credit, but because of his association with the Proud Boys, accelerationism comes to mind for some reason.

 

[Sanity Check]

Fear not, no one believes that he supports BLM.

Does anyone openly support BLM?

Even the NFL seems to be distancing themselves from the prior relationship.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Does anyone openly support BLM?

Even the NFL seems to be distancing themselves from the prior relationship.

At this point I hope it's just trolling the screeching shitlibs.

 

[xi0]

Does anyone openly support BLM?

Even the NFL seems to be distancing themselves from the prior relationship.

Yeah?

Why would you say the NFL is distancing themselves? Let's not act like it wasn't lip-service in the first place lol

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

TBH I don't even believe the prosecution's apparent ineptitude had that much of an effect in the case. Of course, if it did then that would probably mean the facts were not on rittenhouse's side and the results of the trial were not in accordance to the law.

Agreed. But, as I said I think the facts speak for themselves IN SPITE of the shitty prosecution.

No? It's not the defense's job to "prove" innocence, it's the prosecution's job to prove guilt. The defense didn't have to prove during the case that kyle acted in self defense, they simply had to defend kyle from the prosecution's accusations.

Sigh. Technically true...

Spoiler

I've already acknowledged the distinction between 'innocence' and 'not guilty'... Kyle was 'proven' (found) not guilty by nature of a good defense, a bad solicitor, self-evident evidence, confusion on elements of guilt, a combination of all of the above, whatever.

There is a PRESUMPTION of innocence. If the Prosecutors cannot prove guilt, the defendant is presumed to revert to a guilt-less status, aka innocent by any layman's understanding. Sure, TECHNICALLY they are not one in the same - already noted. The defense 'proves' innocence by, in this case convincing the jury (as opposed to a bench trial). The story the defense provided, was to provide facts in the story of self-defense. The jurors heard a case, from the defense, of self-defense. The decision that was made that Kyle was not guilty was based on... self defense. Saying that hasn't been proven is getting lost in the semantics, again. A distinction without a difference. The entire point is that the jury in this case was won over by the understanding that Kyle had been defending himself over the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So, there existed enough doubt against Kyle being guilty due to the self-defense, well, defense.

TLDR, while TECHNICALLY 'proving innocence' isn't a thing (the burden of proof not being on the defense), the prosecution failed to prove guilt... because there is a REASONABLE DOUBT that what the defense said was true (or what the prosecution said was false). And what the defense sought to convince the jury of ('prove to them' in layman's parlance) is a case of... self defense.

So... we actually agree (here). I don't want to get lost in the context of semantics though. The functional result is the jury had been failed to be convinced of his guilt, at least in part by the efforts of the defense seeking to convince of a situation of self-defense (which was exactly their argument, a winning and a correct one).

It's absolutely relevant. A kid walking around with a gun just because is downright dystopian. Note that I am not saying it's illegal. And yeah, I do take issue with kids walking around with guns. And civilians walking around with guns in general.

Plenty of people do it all the time. Without a problem. Even that night. On both sides. It wasn't a function of anyone carrying or having a gun present. It was a function of those seeking to end Kyle's life (several of which were armed, the rest used crowd strength and makeshift weapons), and Kyle defending his life in response.

Violence ONLY erupted (in gunfire resulting in human damage) that night when a pair of people sought to kill Kyle, and started firing in a crowd. (who happened to look like freaking white supremacists btw).

Kyle didn't just walk around screaming "Self-Defense!" and start firing at random. Kyle didn't even try and start a fight or say a cross word on (any of) the videos we have (which cover from before the first shots up until he turns himself over to the cops).

Age also didn't play into the events in the slightest.

Yes, terrifying, dystopian shit. Even in third world countries it's rare to see kids that are competent at guns.

Not sure your point considering this is a singular instance of a 17yo that was showing complete competence (what's the outrage based on exactly?). How many instances of 17yo's (or 18 or whatever for that matter) - specifically - have resulted in a threat to the general public? As in people that aren't also involved in a high-risk behavior (like a drug deal, or a fight)

If a 17yo plinks in a forest, would you even know to be upset?

You mean other than his armed presence at a riot he could have easily avoided?

Kyle wasn't doing anything with his gun that caused a problem. UNTIL someone randomly started to end his life. You have it exactly backwards - the vigilantism happening that night was against Kyle.

Come on, the guy went there to play batman with guns. That's as clear cut as the result of the trial. It's the police's job to tear gas rioters into submission, not random civilians with guns...

Lol. You need to tell that to the second two that were shot. THEY were the ones actually playing vigilante.

Kyle didn't not instigate. He was never at any point seeking to 'submit' 'random' 'civilians'. You act like he was policing people at the point of a gun.

That's a concocted narrative, and based on no facts. Kyle was the only one being attacked FFS. The (multiple) video(s) painfully shows that fact.

Not sure of how to respond to this because my comment was on rittenhouse not having a gun permit. What should happen here is that if you carry a gun without a permit you are committing a crime or misdemeanor at least. As in, without further incidents to aggravate the situation carrying a gun around without a permit should by itself be a problem.

If Kyle didn't have a weapon he'd likely be dead. The only victim of the night, Kyle, was defended with a firearm. Everything worked exactly how it should have. Literally: the only thing to stop bad guys with guns is a good guy with a gun. That's exactly how it played out.

I've never said this wasn't a riot. Heck, tear gas them an hose them down for all I care, that's the police's job.

Agreed.

And when the cops weren't there in the split second you need to defend your life from being taken, the law supports defending yourself, even if by lethal means. Which is what happened with Kyle.

You'd appreciate it if you found yourself in (even against all efforts to avoid) a similar situation.

Also... at least the third and second guy that kyle shot thought kyle was an active shooter.

Patently false. The video shows them chasing him down. Kyle was not firing, not targeting, and told guy #2 he was going to the police. It's an irony beyond ironies that you say KYLE shouldn't be the one policing that night, but act as an apologist for the only people ACTUALLY trying to act like they're police, #2 and #3. Kyle was RETREATING (away from the crowd, towards the police) while they chased him down. He was RUNNING and FACING AWAY. Have you seen all the footage or what?

Further, the audio PROVES that they didn't think he wasn't an active shooter. The audio revolved around Kyle having shot someone, and they sought retribution. "cranium that guy, he shot someone" (<-- what was actually shouted) NOT "OMG, look out, he's trying to shoot us".

Apples to fucking oranges, man.

Because surprise, he shot someone. They had every reason to think kyle was a threat.

Again, no. A threat is telling you that they're going to the police while you run them down? That is NOT a threat, and this is the problem you have with understanding self-defense and the nuance involved.

If I try to kill you with a knife, you can kill me (in most instances, all things the same). BUT, if I stop trying to kill you, you disarm me, I throw down my knife, etc, you CAN NOT try and kill me. You can't even seek to attack me if I'm not IMMINENTLY threatening you. Even if I JUST stabbed someone and then stopped. YOU don't get to do anything about it, particularly kill me. At that point it is murder (because you are NO LONGER being threatened). The devil is in the details as far as the law, and common sense sees it. At that point it reverts from ACTUAL self-defense to vigilantism, and you are guilty of murder. Formerly, you would have been legally protected of killing in self-defense. The law does draw an important distinction between murder and killing (in the context of self defense for the later).

Murder is NOT LEGAL, and never will be. Killing as a defense is.

Let alone the fact that stopping an active shooter is an inherently heroic act.

Funny, because Kyle was the only one stopping an immediate shooter that night.

Regarding the first... it is worth noting that the actual start of the confrontation comes from rittenhouse and witnesses that as far as I can tell did not see the actual start.

LOL, no. I'm guessing you did not see the actual start either. Kyle was running from a guy screaming at him.

Imagine running AT a guy with a gun, who tries in vain to get away. You then start screaming threats, THROWING things at him as he flees from you, and your accomplice fires a shot at a low angle behind his back when the guy with a gun (who did NOT raise to you, who did NOT threaten you, who TRIED to leave you be) is forced into a narrow field of objects putting him into a bottleneck while being threatened and presumably shot at. He turns at that point thinking he's being shot at, because, shots and threats are coming from two people you've seen acting together several times that night.

That's what happened, that's what the video shows, and that's what the jury saw as well. You could see it too if you'd take the time.

Welp, showing up to a powder keg of a situation you can easily avoid with an obvious much larger and much deadlier weapon (even on the technicality that rittenhouse couldn't get a different one apparently) obviously makes this worst. I don't think we will agree on this though.

Deadlier than what? What metric? 556 is one of the smallest, weakest rounds that a rifle can be chambered in. It's tiny (but fast). Less energy than practically ANY shotgun, and most other rounds a rifle can fire are more powerful, except maybe the 22LR. It's not even considered large enough to hunt deer in certain places. It's considered an 'intermediary' round because it's so weak relatively-speaking for a rifle round.

Regardless, would you rather be fired at the cranium by a .40 or a 556 at effectively point-blank? Because that's the range this was happening at. Practically any firearm at that range is just as effectively deadly. Kyle wasn't shooting people at 400 yards that didn't see him coming with 3 round bursts FFS.

Saying that Kyle shouldn't be there is also blaming the victim. He had every right and reason to be there. AND to be armed. For HIS defense. Which was found to be necessary after all.

Welp, if there is any justice whatsoever here then if the friend gets charged then rittenhouse will also take his share of the blame on a straw purchase then.

What charge would that be for Kyle?

Unprovoked? You could make a case for the first guy that was shot given the absence of evidence otherwise...

No. There's literally video evidence showing it was unprovoked. It's in no way lacking.

but the other guys thought kyle was an active shooter. Can you blame them for not getting the memo that kyle was the good guy with a gun?

Yes. Kyle was not an ACTIVE shooter as you're claiming.

He was in retreat. To the police. Which he said (he actually gave them the 'memo' as you put it). As he ran. AWAY. From the crowd. That chased. After HIM. TOWARDS. The police.

Because thems the facts.













I'd suggest you actually watch the videos.

 

[ninjabot]

Travis McMichael testifies Ahmaud Arbery was "just running" and did not threaten him before fatal encounter

The defense rested its case after the jury heard testimony from Travis McMichael, the man who fired the fatal shots.

www.cbsnews.com

Motherfuckers getting brave with it now. Flat-out admitting he wasn't a threat. We'll see if it matters.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Travis McMichael testifies Ahmaud Arbery was "just running" and did not threaten him before fatal encounter

The defense rested its case after the jury heard testimony from Travis McMichael, the man who fired the fatal shots.

www.cbsnews.com

Motherfuckers getting brave with it now. Flat-out admitting he wasn't a threat. We'll see if it matters.

Ah, an ACTUAL racist crime.

3 racists intended to kill.

The judge destroyed any chance the defense had anyways.





Guilty.

 

[Sanity Check]

Kyle Rittenhouse and His Mother Flew Out to Meet with President Trump in Mar-a-Lago (Video) * The Gateway Pundit * by Jim Hoft

President Trump joined Sean Hannity on Tuesday for an hour-long interview discussing everything from Joe Biden's shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan to the…

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[M3J]

Fear not, no one believes that he supports BLM. His ilk is incapable of even supporting it's premise without equally simping for cops.

Not that I would want to give him that much credit, but because of his association with the Proud Boys, accelerationism comes to mind for some reason.

His ilk? I thought he didn't know he was meeting with Proud Boys, or was that a lie to make him look good? Wonder if he knows about white supremacists starting riots and blaming BLM for it

 

[xi0]

His ilk? I thought he didn't know he was meeting with Proud Boys, or was that a lie to make him look good? Wonder if he knows about white supremacists starting riots and blaming BLM for it

What do you think they were saying to him? It doesn't take much of an imagination to guess.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Wonder if he knows about white supremacists starting riots and blaming BLM for it

Because THAT'S the bulk of what happened that summer.

Fact-less echo-chamber, engage!

 

[M3J]

What do you think they were saying to him? It doesn't take much of an imagination to guess.

Well, I did find it weird that he claimed to be pro-BLM but had no problem drinking and stuff afterwards, and the fact that he was there to "protect" despite the fact he should have known that BLM protesters are usually peaceful until cops interfere.