Could you take your AR15, walk through a hostile BLM protest . . .

The courts and juries determine what the laws mean, how they’re interpreted, and how they’re applied.

In this case it’s lawful for a rightwing racist armed with an AR 15 to seek out a demonstration against police violence and the killing of Americans of color in police custody, unilaterally provoke a confrontation with a participant, and murder that participant with impunity making a bad faith claim of ‘self-defense.’

That is the consequence of the Rittenhouse verdict; it’s perfectly appropriate to infer that other rightwing racist will take advantage of the verdict to engage in further acts of violence and murder against Americans of color.

This is what conservatism has become; this is who conservatives are.

Do you understand that Jacob Blake was not killed in police custody? That jacob Blake raped his baby momma, violated the restraining order she had against him and tried to take her children away from her when the police arrived to arrest him? That he failed to comply with lawful orders to submit to arrest for the rape and violation of the restraining order, fought the police and still tried to take the children when he grabbed a knife and only then was he shot?


You used to be just stupid…….now you suffer from Rittenhouse Syndrome…….you need professional help.
 
I think they were Indian . . .

View attachment 566646

I have to say that I am irritated that more people haven’t highlighted the race of the business owners now that we know who they are………..thank you for pointing it out….

Kyle was helping to protect the business of two non-white guys………from a crowd of democrat party, left wing racists who were burning and looting primarily black owned businesses…..
 
What I mean that a random person could do essentially the same thing that Kyle Rittenhouse did. Take a gun, walk through an angry crowd, get harassed, kill people, say he was afraid for his life, claim self defense and get off Scott free.

We could get a whole rash of these shootings.
You missed some things. Rittenhouse wasn't harassed, he was assaulted.
 
An armed citizen carrying a concealed handgun is making a withdraw from an ATM.

An attacker attempts to rob the citizen; the armed citizen kills his attacker.

That’s an example of appropriate, lawful self-defense.

A rightwing racist travels 20 miles to another state where he has no business being, intentionally places himself in a potentially dangerous situation, with the hope of killing an American of color.

He lies about ‘protecting’ a business whose building is empty, whose owners he doesn’t know, he lies about being ‘EMS,’ and he’s openly carrying a semi-automatic carbine in anticipation of killing an American of color.

This is not an example of appropriate, lawful self-defense – it’s an example of reckless, irresponsible, criminal vigilantism.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I've seen demagogues, I've seen partisan insanity, but this attempt to read minds takes the cake. I don't know how many times I've had to tell people that those mind reading foil helmets they get at the Spy vs Spy store don't work. Want me to stop mocking you? Here's all you have to do:

1. Prove that Rittenhouse hoped to "kill an American of color". And no, random rants about racism in America don't count.
2. Prove that Rittenhouse carried a "semi-automatic carbine in anticipation of killing an American of color". And no, random rants about racism in America don't count.

Otherwise, I'll have to continue reminding you that the foil helmets just don't work.
 
So he just has to wait until someone pushes him a little hard and he unloads on them?
I'd say if that someone smacked him in the head with a deadly object and proceeded to kick him in the head he would be justified in protecting himself, wouldn't you?
 
Thanks to verdict, a new precedence has been set.

You can take your guns to any disturbance you want, shoot as many people as you want, and walk away scot free.
That's a stupid thing to believe. Sad that some actually seem to.
 
You left out one important aspect: Being "harassed" doesn't constitute grounds for self-defense. Rittenhouse didn't shoot anyone because he was "harassed." He shot them because he was "physically attacked."

Your inability to understand the difference is probably a good reason why you shouldn't own a gun.

All the Tard's brains are really short-circuited by this decision. All decisions are supposed to favor their being able to trample all over other people freely, they are not used to the court finding that their victims can now shoot back in self-defense! Their brains simply cannot process that!
 
There are six states and the District of Columbia where the open carrying of firearms is illegal – so an AR 15 likely won’t be used; but the principle remains the same: rightwing racists and bigots are at liberty to murder Americans of color engaged in lawful protest, claiming ‘self-defense.’
You don't even -try- to hide the fact you're lying.
 

Forum List

Back
Top