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

[Orangecat]

get harassed, kill a bunch of people, claim you thought you were going to die, claim self-defense and get off Scott free?

Define "harrassed"?
You could use lethal force to defend yourself from people who assault you, sure.
Especially if multiple video evidence confirms your story.

 

[JoeBlow]

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.

So he just has to wait until someone pushes him a little hard and he unloads on them?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

So you admit that it was a potentially dangerous situation?

Was it a potentially dangerous situation because of the burning, looting, and murdering, that was going on?

Where were the police who were supposed to be protecting the neighborhood from burning, looting, and murdering?

Did the police and government relinquish their rights in this matter to others?

It would appear that they did.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"this subhuman shit"

They are exercising their First Amendment rights as expressed in the Bill of Rights. They are complaining that police are too rough.

Is that a reason to kill them?

Rioting, looting, stealing and destroying property which is not yours, committing acts of violence and destruction against those who are not party to whatever it is that you think you are “protesting”, is not protest. All it communicates is that you are unfit to be considered a human being, to be considered anything better than a dangerous wild animal that should be put down for the safety of actual human beings.

Nothing in the First Amendment comes anywhere close to implying any right to engage in such behavior. The First Amendment protects the right to assemble peaceably. The sort of behavior in which your kind engage does not meet any rational definition of such peaceable assembly.

Of course, being a a subhuman criminal piece of shit yourself, I wouldn't expect you to understand this important distinction between how actual human beings behave, and how subhuman animals such as your kind behave.

 

[JGalt]

So he just has to wait until someone pushes him a little hard and he unloads on them?

Kyle didn't "unload" on anyone. Shot placement and unnecessary expenditure of ammo counts more.

 

[BlackSand]

Not when they burn shit down you moron.

No one disputes that protests are ok. Only ignorant fucks, like you, claim rioting is the same as protesting.

It ain't dipshit.

.

It might be easier if we just reiterate the very important facts,

Intimidation is not not against the laws for either protestors or defenders.
With that in mind, bringing a skateboard to a gunfight ... Is not a smart idea.

The Prosecution tries to express that Kyle should have taken a beating (or worse) instead of engaging the assailants.
No one is required to take a beating in order to appease protestors, nor are they required to stay home in order to avoid protestors.

This is a wonderful example of what will happen when emotionally driven people think their beliefs, or social opinion, are a substantial substitute,
for our protected rights and our actual laws.

.​

 

[Orangecat]

So he just has to wait until someone pushes him a little hard and he unloads on them?

Darwin has a law for unarmed people who "push" armed people too hard. It keeps the species strong.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

.

It might be easier if we just reiterate the very important facts,

Intimidation is not not against the laws for either protestors or defenders.
With that in mind, bringing a skateboard to a gunfight ... Is not a smart idea.

The Prosecution tries to express that Kyle should have taken a beating (or worse) instead of engaging the assailants.
No one is required to take a beating in order to appease protestors, nor are they required to stay home in order to avoid protestors.

This is a wonderful example of what will happen when emotionally driven people think their beliefs, or social opinion, are a substantial substitute,
for our protected rights and our actual laws.

.​

If Rittenhouse would've remained with his fellow militia members instead of rushing off into a crowd of hostile protestors, two people would still be alive.

If the militia guys stopped Kyle from running off into a crowd of hostile protestors, two people would still be alive.

 

[Auld Phart]

It’s a perfectly appropriate, reasonable inference:

“The authoritarian right had largely failed to create a violent hero to rally around — until the Kenosha shooter”

Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: Just what the right needs to create a thousand more like him

The authoritarian right had largely failed to create a violent hero to rally around — until the Kenosha shooter

www.salon.com

Salon....English version of Pravda.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If Rittenhouse would've remained with his fellow militia members instead of rushing off into a crowd of hostile protestors, two people would still be alive.

If Rittenhouse had remained in Illinois, two people would still be alive.

Correction. Two violent, destructive, dangerous subhuman pieces of shit would still be alive. Only another destructive, dangerous subhuman piece of shit would try to make an argument on the basis of that being a desirable outcome.

 

[surada]

He was more than merely “harrassed”. The leftist BLM savages were chasing him, and threatening his life.

Stop demonizing this kid just because he’s a whitey.

Why did Kyle break the curfew?

 

[Oldestyle]

Yes.

The Rittenhouse verdict authorizes rightwing racists and bigots to murder with impunity.

What the Rittenhouse verdict does is send a loud and clear message to far left anarchists that if they loot, burn and assault others...they're leaving themselves open to an armed response from citizens that are tired of the lawlessness!

 

[Oldestyle]

Why did Kyle break the curfew?

Because the anarchists that were trying to burn Kenosha to the ground were doing so at night? With all due respect, Sarada...you can't let the "mob" break curfew and then claim the right to prosecute people trying to save their homes and businesses from being looted and burned!

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Kyle ignored the people who were merely harassing him and de-escalated the situation. He only shot the vicious predators who had caught him alone, chased him down and tried to kill him.

 

[surada]

Because the anarchists that were trying to burn Kenosha to the ground were doing so at night? With all due respect, Sarada...you can't let the "mob" break curfew and then claim the right to prosecute people trying to save their homes and businesses from being looted and burned!

They weren't "protesters".. Protesters aren't vandals, looters and arsonists. The protesters had been going home before dark for three days. Nobody was left except vandals and armed militia.

 

[surada]

Kyle ignored the people who were merely harassing him and de-escalated the situation. He only shot the vicious predators who had caught him alone, chased him down and tried to kill him.

Trying to stop someone is not the same as killing someone.

 

[Auld Phart]

Trying to stop someone is not the same as killing someone.

Trying to stop someone is not the same as killing someone.

What kind of people try to 'stop' someone by swinging a skateboard at their head, or pointing a handgun at them?

 

[Muhammed]

Why did Kyle break the curfew?

He didn't. Unlike the communist insurgents, he had a legitimate reason to be there.

The judge dismissed that charge.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Rittenhouse would've remained with his fellow militia members instead of rushing off into a crowd of hostile protestors, two people would still be alive.

If Rittenhouse had remained in Illinois, two people would still be alive.

One cannot intentionally place himself in harm’s way, unilaterally provoke confrontations, murder individuals as a consequence of his reckless, irresponsible actions, and then claim ‘self-defense.’

 

[Muhammed]

If Rittenhouse would've remained with his fellow militia members instead of rushing off into a crowd of hostile protestors, two people would still be alive.

Of course that is not what actually happened. You really show off your stupidity when you mindlessly parrot bullshit you heard from the leftstream fake news media.

They are called fake news for a reason.

THINK!