Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:13 pm**

Permissible? By my logic? Huh?

Dude, we can only speculate how much worse the bloodshed would have been on January 6, if the insurrectionists weren’t white.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:14 pm**

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:00 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:42 pm
JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:54 am

Of course it does. You're mischaracterizing Rittenhouse's actions to fit your preferred narrative. Guns weren't pointed until threats were made. I don't believe Rittenhouse had any intention of using the gun until he felt that his life was in danger, which is the whole point of carrying a firearm in the first place.

I'd prefer that no one was walking around with an AR-15 in everyday life. It's overkill and invites problems like the one in Kenosha. I'd also prefer that people didn't feel the need to throw temper tantrums by burning, rioting, and looting the private property of people who had nothing to do with hurting them when court rulings don't go their way. Both actions are wrong and are against the law.

Where I have a problem is that libs tend to get all bent out of shape when the former happens, but excuse and even applaud when the latter happens - to the point where police no longer feel confident enough to step up and handle the problem, leaving private citizens to protect their own property, or in Rittenhouse's case, solicit others to protect it for them.

I'm not interested in "owning" anybody. I'm interested in the legal definition of murder staying where it is rather than being expanded to include people who exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and protect themselves. That's a slippery slope to totalitarianism.
Didn't drone footage from that night show Rittenhouse repeatedly point his weapon at demostrators prior to the initial shooting?
After being threatened, chased, and pelted with various sundries? Yes.

As the judge explained and the prosecution tried to obscure, provocation is nullified when an individual attempts to retreat, which is what Rittenhouse did prior to shooting anybody. Once you start pursuing, the provocation defense is nullified.

The prosecutors seem to be saying that the drone footage shows him pointing his weapon at demonstrators prior to Rosenbaum interacting with him.

And do you mean to tell me that if you point a gun at a crowd of people and I see it and run at you to try to stop you because I consider you an active shooter and you "retreat" by taking a few steps backwards or running behind a structure or object then provocation just magically "goes away" and you are therefor legally allowed to kill me? That seems like it might not be so black and white as that.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:15 pm**

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:03 pm
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:30 pm Yea.

And according to the police report, George Floyd simply experienced a medical emergency.

Could happen to any of us!
So, illegal acts are permissible so long as they are motivated by oUTrAgE?!? By your logic, then, the protesters and rioters in DC on January 6th were justified in their actions and should not be held accountable nor do they deserve negative repercussions. See how slippery that slope gets?

I think you missed his point entirely there.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:29 pm**

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:00 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:42 pm
JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:54 am

Of course it does. You're mischaracterizing Rittenhouse's actions to fit your preferred narrative. Guns weren't pointed until threats were made. I don't believe Rittenhouse had any intention of using the gun until he felt that his life was in danger, which is the whole point of carrying a firearm in the first place.

I'd prefer that no one was walking around with an AR-15 in everyday life. It's overkill and invites problems like the one in Kenosha. I'd also prefer that people didn't feel the need to throw temper tantrums by burning, rioting, and looting the private property of people who had nothing to do with hurting them when court rulings don't go their way. Both actions are wrong and are against the law.

Where I have a problem is that libs tend to get all bent out of shape when the former happens, but excuse and even applaud when the latter happens - to the point where police no longer feel confident enough to step up and handle the problem, leaving private citizens to protect their own property, or in Rittenhouse's case, solicit others to protect it for them.

I'm not interested in "owning" anybody. I'm interested in the legal definition of murder staying where it is rather than being expanded to include people who exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and protect themselves. That's a slippery slope to totalitarianism.
Didn't drone footage from that night show Rittenhouse repeatedly point his weapon at demostrators prior to the initial shooting?
After being threatened, chased, and pelted with various sundries? Yes.

As the judge explained and the prosecution tried to obscure, provocation is nullified when an individual attempts to retreat, which is what Rittenhouse did prior to shooting anybody. Once you start pursuing, the provocation defense is nullified.

I have been threatened, chased, and pelted with objects. I didn't have a gun. Possibly/probably/definitely because I didn't have a gun, I still managed to survive - and so did the people threatening, chasing, and pelting me. Imagine that.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:35 pm**

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:00 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:42 pm
JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:54 am

Of course it does. You're mischaracterizing Rittenhouse's actions to fit your preferred narrative. Guns weren't pointed until threats were made. I don't believe Rittenhouse had any intention of using the gun until he felt that his life was in danger, which is the whole point of carrying a firearm in the first place.

I'd prefer that no one was walking around with an AR-15 in everyday life. It's overkill and invites problems like the one in Kenosha. I'd also prefer that people didn't feel the need to throw temper tantrums by burning, rioting, and looting the private property of people who had nothing to do with hurting them when court rulings don't go their way. Both actions are wrong and are against the law.

Where I have a problem is that libs tend to get all bent out of shape when the former happens, but excuse and even applaud when the latter happens - to the point where police no longer feel confident enough to step up and handle the problem, leaving private citizens to protect their own property, or in Rittenhouse's case, solicit others to protect it for them.

I'm not interested in "owning" anybody. I'm interested in the legal definition of murder staying where it is rather than being expanded to include people who exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and protect themselves. That's a slippery slope to totalitarianism.
Didn't drone footage from that night show Rittenhouse repeatedly point his weapon at demostrators prior to the initial shooting?
After being threatened, chased, and pelted with various sundries? Yes.

As the judge explained and the prosecution tried to obscure, provocation is nullified when an individual attempts to retreat, which is what Rittenhouse did prior to shooting anybody. Once you start pursuing, the provocation defense is nullified.

If nothing else, your level of commitment here is certainly noted.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:35 pm**

if law enforcement was allowed to do their job. kenosha wouldn't be in this position. pull up the fire truck. plug it in . hose em down the road.

problem solved. kenosha wouldn't be in this position.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:36 pm**

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:35 pm if law enforcement was allowed to do their job. kenosha wouldn't be in this position. pull up the fire truck. plug it in . hose em down the road.

problem solved. kenosha wouldn't be in this position.

Kenosha wouldn’t be in this position if white cops would stop shooting unarmed black people

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:38 pm**

wow

just, wow

why not sick the dogs on em while you’re at it, mich?

wtf is wrong with you?

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:39 pm**

Oh come on bro, the real lesson is, don’t try to take on a bunch of cops with a pocket knife in front of your kids.

I mean when you put it THAT way, it’s almost surprising dads don’t get shot 7 times in the back more often!

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:42 pm**

I wonder how the night would have gone if cops weren’t letting armed vigilantes roam the streets in the first place

nm the real threat is still the ones trying to loot snickers bars

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:42 pm**

Oh!

Also

What’s Kyle’s prospects look like in civil court?

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:47 pm**

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:35 pm if law enforcement was allowed to do their job. kenosha wouldn't be in this position. pull up the fire truck. plug it in . hose em down the road.

problem solved. kenosha wouldn't be in this position.

Had law enforcement done its job properly, I agree that Kenosha (and, for that matter, Kyle Rittenhouse) would not be in this position.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:50 pm**

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:54 pm**

Meanwhile, in Goergia

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:19 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:54 pm Meanwhile, in Goergia

You do realize that the two cases are entirely unrelated and don't compare to one another, right? I hope?

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:20 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:15 pm
JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:03 pm
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:30 pm Yea.

And according to the police report, George Floyd simply experienced a medical emergency.

Could happen to any of us!
So, illegal acts are permissible so long as they are motivated by oUTrAgE?!? By your logic, then, the protesters and rioters in DC on January 6th were justified in their actions and should not be held accountable nor do they deserve negative repercussions. See how slippery that slope gets?
I think you missed his point entirely there.

Everything is about race. All the time. No exceptions. I believe that was his point and has been his point as long as I've been reading his posts.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:21 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:13 pm Permissible? By my logic? Huh?

Dude, we can only speculate how much worse the bloodshed would have been on January 6, if the insurrectionists weren’t white.

Yup. Totally ignore the point and keep propping up your narrative. I've come to expect as much.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:24 pm**

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:19 pm
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:54 pm Meanwhile, in Goergia

You do realize that the two cases are entirely unrelated and don't compare to one another, right? I hope?

Again, you're being silly. At their core, they're about the same thing: guns and vigilantism.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:24 pm**

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:35 pm if law enforcement was allowed to do their job. kenosha wouldn't be in this position. pull up the fire truck. plug it in . hose em down the road.

problem solved. kenosha wouldn't be in this position.

We'll remember that the next time a group of "patriots" try to storm the Capital and interrupt the process of a Presidential election.

Posted: **Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:27 pm**

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:21 pm
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:13 pm Permissible? By my logic? Huh?

Dude, we can only speculate how much worse the bloodshed would have been on January 6, if the insurrectionists weren’t white.
Yup. Totally ignore the point and keep propping up your narrative. I've come to expect as much.

I didn't see any white people with AR-15s driving out to prevent the Capital from being damaged.

Kansas Crimson

Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha

Re: Kenosha