Kenosha

[ousdahl]

If it was the last time you saw me this butt-hurt, it was prob cuz that was the last time you saw me, since you only come out of the woodwork to antagonize when your perceived side is winning.

#owned

Meh. I drop in every once in awhile to see if anyone actually wants to discuss issues. But, as always, you all just want your liberal echo chamber and throw a fit until dissenting voices are silenced. Sad, but not unexpected.

It musta been a while since you dropped in, cuz it’s been a while since I was a liberal.

[JKLivin]

If it was the last time you saw me this butt-hurt, it was prob cuz that was the last time you saw me, since you only come out of the woodwork to antagonize when your perceived side is winning.

#owned

Meh. I drop in every once in awhile to see if anyone actually wants to discuss issues. But, as always, you all just want your liberal echo chamber and throw a fit until dissenting voices are silenced. Sad, but not unexpected.

It musta been a while since you dropped in, cuz it’s been a while since I was a liberal.

Lulz. Call yourself a Socialist all you want. In my book, you’re a liberal.

[JKLivin]

if only that’s all you were was a dissenting voice

you can’t even own up to your own inconsistencies/hypocrisies in this thread, and you have the gall to accuse anyone else if not wanting to have an honest discussion?

gtfo

What would those inconsistencies and hypocrisies be? I think I have addressed them as they were posed, but I could be mistaken.

[ousdahl]

If you’d like to, feel free to stop dodging these questions

I think he would have been rightly convicted of illegal possession of a firearm.

Really?

Do ya mean that?

Even if it meant a young man otherwise just starting out his life may have spent time in the slammer?

Lord knows the same has happened to other young men. Who otherwise had their entire lives ahead of them. For weapons charges too! Without even necessarily killing someone. And certainly without the judge tossing the charge on some technicality.

And that begs a fundamental sort of question - is it appropriate for a defendant to claim legal self-defense, with an illegal weapon?

For real though, how often do you see a defendant on trial for double homicide, directly next to/behind a judge, not cuffed or restrained or anything, just sorta hanging out together?

BTW pretty sure they were watching spongebob.

[Deleted User 89]

if only that’s all you were was a dissenting voice

you can’t even own up to your own inconsistencies/hypocrisies in this thread, and you have the gall to accuse anyone else if not wanting to have an honest discussion?

gtfo

What would those inconsistencies and hypocrisies be? I think I have addressed them as they were posed, but I could be mistaken.

you didn’t address shit

rather, you accused me of being a simpleton

gtfo…your rock likely misses you

[JKLivin]

If you’d like to, feel free to stop dodging these questions

I think he would have been rightly convicted of illegal possession of a firearm.

Really?
Yes, really.
Do ya mean that?
Yes, I do mean that.
Even if it meant a young man otherwise just starting out his life may have spent time in the slammer?
Yes. I think they were able to inappropriately apply the Wisconsin law pertaining to deer hunting rifles to his AR. He should never have been walking around in public with an assault rifle, much less in a volatile setting like Kenosha was at the time.

Lord knows the same has happened to other young men. Who otherwise had their entire lives ahead of them. For weapons charges too! Without even necessarily killing someone. And certainly without the judge tossing the charge on some technicality.

And that begs a fundamental sort of question - is it appropriate for a defendant to claim legal self-defense, with an illegal weapon?
So, you're saying that, if he had, say, a baseball bat and beat two men to death and injured a third with it in order to defend himself, you'd be fine with it? I think self-defense is self-defense. He wasn't hurting anybody until he was attacked and pursued, which, definitionally, makes it self-defense, regardless of how anyone feels about him having an AR-15 in his possession.

For real though, how often do you see a defendant on trial for double homicide, directly next to/behind a judge, not cuffed or restrained or anything, just sorta hanging out together?

It was odd. Knowing you, you're angling for a race issue, but I'm not gonna bite.

BTW pretty sure they were watching spongebob.

Answers above in boldface.

[JKLivin]

if only that’s all you were was a dissenting voice

you can’t even own up to your own inconsistencies/hypocrisies in this thread, and you have the gall to accuse anyone else if not wanting to have an honest discussion?

gtfo

What would those inconsistencies and hypocrisies be? I think I have addressed them as they were posed, but I could be mistaken.

you didn’t address shit

rather, you accused me of being a simpleton

gtfo…your rock likely misses you

Then your reading comprehension skills are about what I imagined them to be. I've been addressing things for several days now. If you choose not to read/consider/process them, that's your issue, not mine.

[JKLivin]

I admit my ignorance. I assume he (or his buddy) gets his buddy's AR-15 back. Yes? No?
I assume it's been talked about why his buddy feels/felt the need to own an AR-15.
If so, anyone know why?
Am I wrong for feeling NO CITIZEN NEEDS an AR-15?

I think you're asking the wrong question. It is irrelevant whether or not anyone NEEDS an AR. That's subjective and assumes that people can't choose for themselves. Like it or not, the Second Amendment gives citizens a RIGHT to own one.

The better question is when and where one should be allowed to carry the weapon. In my opinion, Rittenhouse - or anyone, for that matter - has no valid reason to carry an AR-15 in public, much less in a volatile setting like the one in Kenosha last year.

[ousdahl]

Dunno if Kyle could have racked up the bodycount as quickly and as fatally with a baseball bat.

And I wonder if he would have the same provocative effect raising a bat as he did a gun.

And I wonder if the weapons charge would have still applied, or if the judge woulda thrown it out.

Bear in mind, the law mentions brass knuckles and nunchucks and ninja stars, so why not baseball bats too?

Heck, why not assault rifles too?

Oh.

[ousdahl]

I admit my ignorance. I assume he (or his buddy) gets his buddy's AR-15 back. Yes? No?
I assume it's been talked about why his buddy feels/felt the need to own an AR-15.
If so, anyone know why?
Am I wrong for feeling NO CITIZEN NEEDS an AR-15?

I think you're asking the wrong question. It is irrelevant whether or not anyone NEEDS an AR. That's subjective and assumes that people can't choose for themselves. Like it or not, the Second Amendment gives citizens a RIGHT to own one.

The better question is when and where one should be allowed to carry the weapon. In my opinion, Rittenhouse - or anyone, for that matter - has no valid reason to carry an AR-15 in public, much less in a volatile setting like the one in Kenosha last year.

Yeah.

The lengths the court went to apparently normalize the carrying of a military-style weapon in public, particularly in an area already with a curfew order, is wild.

But I suppose an imperial-colonial system that values personal property more than human lives is nothing new.

[dolomite2]

Message for Kyle Rittenhouse:

[JKLivin]

I admit my ignorance. I assume he (or his buddy) gets his buddy's AR-15 back. Yes? No?
I assume it's been talked about why his buddy feels/felt the need to own an AR-15.
If so, anyone know why?
Am I wrong for feeling NO CITIZEN NEEDS an AR-15?

I think you're asking the wrong question. It is irrelevant whether or not anyone NEEDS an AR. That's subjective and assumes that people can't choose for themselves. Like it or not, the Second Amendment gives citizens a RIGHT to own one.

The better question is when and where one should be allowed to carry the weapon. In my opinion, Rittenhouse - or anyone, for that matter - has no valid reason to carry an AR-15 in public, much less in a volatile setting like the one in Kenosha last year.

Yeah.

The lengths the court went to apparently normalize the carrying of a military-style weapon in public, particularly in an area already with a curfew order, is wild.

But I suppose an imperial-colonial system that values personal property more than human lives is nothing new.

In other words, “Help, help, I’m being repressed! I’m being repressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!”

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Since it was said Rittenhouse acted in self defense, what will Gaige Grosskreutz be arrested and tried for?

[sdoyel]

This will happen again.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

This will happen again.

Of course it will. Just like there will be many more school shootings.
We live in an asinine horse shit country when it comes to the gun culture.

[sdoyel]

[ousdahl]

[ousdahl]

Since it was said Rittenhouse acted in self defense, what will Gaige Grosskreutz be arrested and tried for?

I’ve thought about this.

Lots of parallels, right?

Both not supposed to be out there, both not supposed to have a gun, both acting in self defense, both were the first to raise their weapon, both perceive themselves as the victim

If there’s a reason Gaige hasn’t been charged, it’s that he gets a certain “good guy with a gun” benefit of the doubt too, again perhaps parallel to the benefit of the doubt Kyle’s enjoyed, since for a split second there he/the system can frame it as trying to stop an active threat? Or something?

I guess the difference is, only one actually fired or did any damage

[JKLivin]

It always has to go back to race, even when it was a White man shooting at other White men, with no association to White supremacy whatsoever. It’s almost like people want a crisis, and when one doesn’t exist, they try to manufacture one. SMH.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

It always has to go back to race, even when it was a White man shooting at other White men, with no association to White supremacy whatsoever. It’s almost like people want a crisis, and when one doesn’t exist, they try to manufacture one. SMH.

The White man (actually kid) and those he shot were in conflict due to what began as a racial issue. True or not?
You really have no idea if Rittenhouse has any association to/with white supremacy - or not. Do you?