More like members of Congress offering him internships, a member of the Trump Administration declaring him an exemplar of young masculinity, and Trump himself saying it was the bestest most beautiful self defense of all time.
Trump's puffery is on point, head shot on pedo, center mass on woman beater, clears slide under duress, disarms communist.
His defense attorney said he’s likely gonna leave the state and wants to be a nurse, and that he’s undergoing treatment for ptsd. The far right is not gonna be happy the thing they want him to be, is not what he wants to be at all.
What a hero. Yeah I’m sure he knew all about their backgrounds when he shot them. I’m thrilled that now it’s okay for me to kill people and come up with a reason to justify it afterwards.
If we can get him to advocate for vaccines he might just become the most universally hated man in America.
The pedophile kicked the whole sequence of events off by acting hyper aggressive and instigating a physical confrontation. Given how he was acting I’d say he was more likely to get shot minus Kyle being there than Kyle randomly shooting someone minus Pedo being there. He chose poorly and I have the world’s tiniest violin for him. The idiots trying to deify him are just pathetic at this point.
As much as Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there, these idiots shouldn’t have been either. It must suck finding an armed resistance while you’re rioting, but oh well.
I’m not surprised or particularly upset at the verdict. None of the parties should have been where they were or doing what they were doing. But I’ve seen a number of people that seem to think shooting someone is justified by what they may have done in their past, even though there is no way the shooter would have any knowledge of it. Let’s stick to the facts of the case. And I believe it goes both ways. Whatever Rittenhouses personal beliefs are shouldn’t be part of the discussion. Was it self defense or not should be the only question based on the charges.
I agree on all accounts. His actions that night were what got him killed. When talking about it though it's hard not to bring up given the mainstream media's projections and narrative on Kyle Rittenhouse's actions. Vigilante white supremist hunting down peaceful protestors as an active shooter. I think some of that hyperbole ended up being a failing of the prosecution. Normally the skeevy whoppers in trials usually falls on a defense lawyer defending someone obviously guilty and have to come up with nonsense to rationalize it to a jury (see Casey Anthony's 'my dad abused me defense'). In this case the prosecutor was throwing out some shit that will go down in history as all time bullshittery. In closing he said something along the lines of "A skateboard isnt a deadly weapon, it's a toy, if it's a deadly weapon then youre going to have to tell thousands of parents nationwide not to put them in as stocking stuffers for their kids this Christmas." Just wow.
Dude should have known better. Isn't that a common saying? "Don't bring a skateboard to a gunfight" or something like that.
Listening to people talk about this case generally follows two very clear lines. The first, did you actually pay attention to anything that happened in the trial, yes or no. You can easily find out if this is true by asking 3 or 4 questions like, "Did he bring a gun across state lines?" "Was he asked to come defend property?" "What started the interaction which resulted in Joseph Rosenbaum being killed?" If the answers to these questions aren't No, Yes, He used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire Rosenbaum started and thought Kyle was someone who he was arguing with earlier, the person you are talking with has no idea about anything that actually happened at the trial and everything they have to say is just their misguided opinion. The second, the kid, however stupid it was for him to be there in the first place, had every right to be there, had every right to defend himself, and the outcome of this case is without question the correct legal outcome. Personally, I think he's beyond stupid for even putting himself in the position where any of this happened. He's a 17 year old who should have been enjoying his high school life instead of trying to get involved in the amount of unrest which was going on at the time. With that said, when you see other kids being paraded around by their parents getting involved with all kinds of causes, I can understand what he might have been thinking, however ignorant or stupid it may seem. It's crazy how all of this started in the first place. A guy who was trying to kidnap his kids, had just assaulted his baby momma, had an active felony warrant against him, and was advancing on police officers with a knife, got shot. It's kind of gross the people the public put their support behind and the people we want to string up in the town square.
Yep. I'm not sure how the US can be so "gun crazy" and hard-core believers in the 2nd Amendment, and yet when someone goes out and exercises those rights, like he did, sit back and say "wait, not like that". Even though it was completely legal. You regularly have people showing up in the news walking around the streets with AR-15's strapped on their back... "this is our right". I think situations like this, albeit a bit messy, come with that right to bear arms.
I think the major cause of anger in this case is simply that someone who is supported by people that think differently politically than they do was found not guilty. Somehow they see this as a personal loss. Has Rittenhouse ever made any kind of political statement? Or did people just collectively assume he's some sort of ultra right wing Nazi death monger that got to carry out his murder fantasies?
I mean, he participated in being the subject of a Tucker Carlson documentary during his ordeal. And he’s going on his show Monday. Besides that though, I think two things can be true. In the moment he killed 2 people and wounded a 3rd, he might have been acting in self defense. The jury didn’t feel he helped to create the dangerous scenario and therefore was justified. The other true thing is that his acquittal has already become the mark of approval for vigilantism by congressional wingnuts. I don’t feel anyone in elected office should openly cheer for the taking of another American citizen’s life regardless of the scenario. If Ilhan Omar said what Madison Cawthorn said yesterday, do you think it would have been okay? They already call her a terrorist. https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1461763097257988106?s=21
Completely agree with this. There should be ZERO reason people in government positions should be doing anything but saying, due process and the judicial system did its job in this case, the loss of life is unfortunate and we need to be better citizens in our society. Wingnuts going off saying absurd things, not just republicans, but democrats as well needs to stop. Pronto. I'm also beyond sick of hearing people say, "I guess you can just bring a gun and shoot peaceful protesters." Bitch please. There was no protesting and it wasn't peaceful when these events happened. Stop with the bullshit. It's doing nothing but furthering along the idea you are completely disconnected with reality and it's pushing people further and further away from coming out and supporting your political party.
Those morons in Georgia straight up murdered a man. I view vigilantism as taking the law into your own hands. Like if your house got broken into and the cops hands are tied due to a lack of evidence, but you’re pretty sure you know who did it, kinda thing. So you go after the bad guys on your own. Super hero crime-fighting type shit.
I’m not saying Rittenhouse’s self defense claim wasn’t legit. I was simply saying that what the guys in Georgia did wasn’t vigilantism. They chased a black guy and killed him for no reason. Rittenhouse’s general reason for attending the riot under guise of security is questionable at best and it seems fairly agreed upon on TiB that he should have never been there. It wasn’t allowed in the trial but he made claims to people he knew that he wished he could grab his AR and kill people that he saw on TV coming out of a drug store or something. All the subsequent photos of him that also weren’t allowed in trial show a person straight up proud of what he did. In my opinion, he went there to get some action. While there, he found himself in a plausible self defense scenario. His going to Kenosha, to me, is what I would consider vigilantism. He went there to be a cop without a badge. Separately from that, he ended up acting in self defense.
I think there is a larger context here though. Three states (Florida, Iowa, and Oklahoma) passed laws after last years protests reducing liability for cars who hit protesters. All while hitting someone with a car was one of the least likely things to be prosecuted for to begin with. It's not like there was an epidemic of overzealous prosecution of car-rammings that had to be reined it; quite the opposite in fact: car-strikes were way up, and prosecutions were low. So the entire reason for the laws passage was messaging, and that messaging was "the law just might look the other way if you're out there protesting and someone kills you." I think a lot of people are reacting to the Rittenhouse verdict in that context of intimidation. It's not like guns only showed up when there was rioting, there was plenty of armed reaction to peaceful protests as well. The McCloskeys got a pardon from the Governor and are now running for Senate. It's clear that there's a political element that wants protestors to feel unsafe and unprotected by the law. So when Rittenhouse ends up killing someone, and even then the fact that he violated the imposed curfew is excused, the fact that he violated the underage possession law is dismissed on a technicality, it feels like a lot of those decisions start from the assumption that this behavior of responding to protests with guns is perfectly normal. The government isn't taking a stance against the intimidating presence of guns, it's not even drawing a hard line that says "you have a second amendment right to be armed, but you have to be scrupulous about following the law if you're going to introduce guns into these situations."
I've read that law a dozen times now. I will never be convinced that it is anything other than a straightforward hunting exemption that does not apply to someone without a hunting permit who is not hunting.