|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 22, 2021 9:06:14 GMT -6
You what else could have happened. A particular political organization could have acted like adults and not spent an entire summer encouraging the ransacking, burning, pillaging, and looting of American cities. The bulk of the summer violence was not organized, and the emotional reaction of those who went into the streets was.
There were plenty of things that went wrong in our response to the incidents that caused the outrage, and plenty of things that went wrong in confronting the outrage. THIS is one that we should not want to see as public policy.
That is not a "could have" we should ignore and we should avoid repeating it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 22, 2021 9:09:22 GMT -6
In this circumstance where the jury found him legally justified, he might well have shot completely innocent bystanders with an automatic weapon. Exactly why police do not use their weapon in many cases where bystanders are endangered. Exactly why they do not put themselves in vulnerable situations where this could happen. Personally, I think he showed tremendous restraint. He showed a great deal of lack of restraint to be where he was. This was deadly force.
This is the wrong place to have a full fledged debate, but common sense says we should avoid this kind of shooting.
Had "hero" Rittenhouse been killed, you have ask yourself whether we would want to have a "rioter" who had equal right to be there to be immune from prosecution because he was in fear of his life and engaged in a gun fight to protect himself.
Is it really a quick draw that decides the "right" in this kind of case where everyone is emotional and everyone frightened (justifiably) that they face deadly force?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 22, 2021 9:38:59 GMT -6
If Rittenhouse had not been armed, he would be dead. And we would not be talking about it at all. He'd just be another anonymous fatality that you ignore.
You make every excuse for the rioters destroying property and endangering lives, but when somebody has the gall to defend themselves against the mob, you blame him.
He should have just let himself be beaten, right? He did nothing illegal, and defended himself against 3 people doing many illegal things. The fact is that he had a right to be there, period. He had a right to be armed with a rifle, period. He was being attacked, and had a right to defend himself, period. These are all facts, but all you offer is conjecture and whataboutism.
The extent to which you'll contort yourself, just to adhere to your misguided and ignorant preconceived notions, is unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 22, 2021 9:41:07 GMT -6
I figured I'd click over here and find some Rittenhouse arguing Happy now??? LOL |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Nov 22, 2021 10:00:22 GMT -6
You know it... Just keeping you guys working over here
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Nov 22, 2021 10:01:50 GMT -6
Im not joining the fray here but since I started it. I will say Im 100% with Lurkin here
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Nov 22, 2021 10:12:25 GMT -6
You would be shocked how much more enjoyable this place is after you put 00hmh on ignore.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 22, 2021 10:37:59 GMT -6
If Rittenhouse had not been armed, he would be dead. And we would not be talking about it at all. He'd just be another anonymous fatality that you ignore. If he had not been armed he would not have been noticed by the crowd that challenged him...
If he had stayed with his cohort who were protecting property, he'd not be where he was...
If he had any sense, he wouldn't have gone to Kenosha to be part of a confrontation...
Those rioters he shot were not in fact it appears doing any unlawful "rioting" or damaging property. They were it appears guilty of heckling and chasing Rittenhouse who they considered a generalized threat. That was stupid, but not more stupid than Rittenhouse seeking the crowd out to "show force" and accomplish whatever he thought that would accomplish? Did he really think he was going to disperse them or tame them?
What the hell was he doing that you think justifies putting himself and others in greater danger by marching into the streets brandishing deadly weaponry and adding that to the mix which was volatile to start with?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 22, 2021 10:49:54 GMT -6
Rosenbaum was trying to push a dumpster into a gas station. Oh, and the dumpster was ON FIRE. What did you think he was trying to do, toast marshmallows?
"What the hell was he doing that you think justifies putting himself and others in greater danger by marching into the streets brandishing deadly weaponry and adding that to the mix which was volatile to start with?"
What the hell do you think justifies trying to BURN DOWN BUSINESSES??
Good God, I hope you're never on a jury.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 22, 2021 11:13:56 GMT -6
You make every excuse for the rioters destroying property and endangering lives, but when somebody has the gall to defend themselves against the mob, you blame him. He should have just let himself be beaten, right? He did nothing illegal, and defended himself against 3 people doing many illegal things. The fact is that he had a right to be there, period. He had a right to be armed with a rifle, period. He was being attacked, and had a right to defend himself, period. These are all facts, but all you offer is conjecture and whataboutism. The extent to which you'll contort yourself, just to adhere to your misguided and ignorant preconceived notions, is unbelievable. I offer no excuse for unlawful behavior.
This guy was not someone the "mob" sought out to take his property or threaten him. HE sought out the "mob" and, yes, surprise, they reacted to him. There was plenty wrong on both sides.
What were these many things those shot were guilty of prior to his appearance on the scene?
Are you telling me he was acting to stop threat to life (or property) with those three? I was not aware they were accused of any wrongdoing other than being on the streets. As was Rittenhouse... He put himself foolishly in danger before having to defend himself. Do we really want to encourage that kind of irresponsible behavior.
Once he did that he met the legal test under Wisconsin law for self defense, at least by a "beyond a doubt" standard the prosecution had to meet that he was not frightened for his life. All he had to do was assert that with any credibility and the prosecution had to disprove it.
None of that is conjecture. Nor is it that this case creates incentive for similar action by other yahoos whose only business trying to perform a law enforcement function is that he owns a deadly weapon.
Do you really want to see more of this? If the rioters had shot first or responded to his shooting thinking they were innocently his target, since many there were legally present and legally carrying weapons would you defend them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 22, 2021 13:05:24 GMT -6
Get back to me when you actually read about the case, and the events leading up to the shootings. You obviously have no idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Nov 22, 2021 17:52:37 GMT -6
I have 00 on block so I don’t know what nonsense he is spouting, but I am confident he knows nothing about the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 22, 2021 19:26:17 GMT -6
Rosenbaum was trying to push a dumpster into a gas station. Oh, and the dumpster was ON FIRE. What did you think he was trying to do, toast marshmallows? I doubt Rittenhouse was responding to any specific knowledge, or even attempting to stop anything specific at any time, did he even know about anything specific or see anything?
But assuming he knew or suspected such activity do you really think it is good policy for him to march out try single handed to stop it? With deadly force he had little idea how to handle.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Nov 23, 2021 22:03:54 GMT -6
I figured I'd click over here and find some Rittenhouse arguing According to 00, this is a Covid thread and there shouldn't be anything else discussed. At least that's the excuse he uses every time I bring-up something he can't defend. It's like he calls "Uncle", let's go back to discussing Covid and not get off topic so I have to defend the liberal idiots who are running the country right now. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Nov 23, 2021 22:04:49 GMT -6
There is nothing to argue. Anyone who followed the trial knows the jury got it right. The Wisconsin self defense rule made the prosecution case very hard.
I won't argue that, but there is a problem here.
I am not happy to see a decision that encourages teenagers with automatic weapons to show up to do "police" work without training. As it was he "joined" a group engaged in police activity then left his cohort to walk a beat on his own. NO police officer would have done what he did.
In this circumstance where the jury found him legally justified, he might well have shot completely innocent bystanders with an automatic weapon. Exactly why police do not use their weapon in many cases where bystanders are endangered. Exactly why they do not put themselves in vulnerable situations where this could happen.
It is even possible the flip side of this decision could have occurred. It could have easily gone the other way. If one of the rioters had encountered a "scared" Rittenhouse who admits he was panicked, could he not have been scared enough to have pointed a weapon at someone who simply beat him to the punch? Would they have been justified to shoot him in reasonable fear for their life? Neither side is completely right here. Both sides should have disengaged or avoided the conflict.
Off topic aren't you? Where is the link to Covid? |
|
