Reactions to Kyle verdict define different views of the meaning of “justice.”

[Bob Blaylock]

Dimm's like him [Andrew Cuomo] are fomenting a race war.

It makes me think of Charles Manson's plot to try to start a “race war”, by sending his gang of all-white followers to murder some other white people, and try to make it look like black people were involved.

 

[Rigby5]

No it isn’t. It has not a thing to do with the gun lobby. Kyle claimed self defense because — wait for it — he was defending himself.

The defendants in the Arbery case are probably screwed because — merely claiming self defense doesn’t mean you were acting with true justification. Also, it seems unlikely a jury will “buy” the claim in their case for a variety of reasons.

But in neither case does the gun lobby have a single thing to do with it.

Wrong.
You can't go to a riot out of state, with a rifle, and claim "self defense".
It is not like he had property there to defend, or that the rioters had rifles.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Agreed. But I'm still wondering why the cops aren't being held accountable for inviting vigilantes to a riot.

The culpability is in failing to do their job to control the rioters. It is their job to maintain law and order; and a right of the people to have their safety and order protected.

When government fails to perform this duty, fails to even make a credible effort at doing so, then vigilantism is an entirely reasonable and expected result.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

You are the one who is wrong. This, or any court case, isn’t about overarching social goals. It was about simple justice. Did Kyle have cause to believe the four criminals ( and yes, all four were convicted criminals) intended to cause him serious bodily injury or kill him. That was what the entire trial was about, nothing more once the gun possession charge was dropped. Based upon the evidence and testimony the answer to that question was YES. That being the case a not guilty verdict was the only just verdict. In no state does the simple action of carrying a firearm openly legally allow others to attack that person.

 

[Ringtone]

While we're distracted with all this Rittenhouse BS, China's kicking our butt

Distracted?! This was a concerted effort by the political left to render the right of self-defense a crime, you silly twit, you imbecile, drooling 'tard.

 

[Turtlesoup]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

What a crock of shit---Kyle did not create the arsonists, burning, looting, and attacking the businesses, city, and people---the 3 shot criminals and their buddies did. They all should have been shot long before Kyle got on the scene.

 

[jknowgood]

I rarely watch videos.

I thought it was pretty clear, that Mr. Rittenhouse shot three different subhuman pieces of shit, but only two of them died. Am I mistaken?

He actually shot at a black man but missed, and killed a pedophile and a felon. That were trying to kill him. What you complaining about?

 

[Ringtone]

The culpability is in failing to do their job to control the rioters. It is their job to maintain law and order; and a right of the people to have their safety and order protected.

When government fails to perform this duty, fails to even make a credible effort at doing so, then vigilantism is an entirely reasonable and expected result.

Rittenhouse didn't engage in vigilantism in the first place. He was trying to protect lives and property when he was attacked by barbarians.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

View attachment 566258

‘UNACCEPTABLE’ — RITTENHOUSE VICTIM’S PARENTS SPEAK OUT​

Amen!

View attachment 566326

Amen! So true!

 

[jknowgood]

It makes me think of Charles Manson's plot to try to start a “race war”, by sending his gang of all-white followers to murder some other white people, and try to make it look like black people were involved.

He was a liberal. Lol

 

[AZrailwhale]

So everyone is entitled to their opinion, unless it differs from yours.

What this says is, if I see a guy walking down the street with an AR15 and I feel threatened by his presence, I can shoot him in the head and call it "self defense", because he had a weapon and I was afraid. All you have to say is "I was scared" and you can kill anyone.

No, the legal standard is that a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm or death from the person carrying the rifle. Just carrying a rifle, no matter how scary it looks, doesn’t meet that standard. But let’s test your theory. Tomorrow go to a rifle range and shoot someone carrying an AR-15 in the head and we can see how YOUR trial comes out. My bet is a unaminous verdict of guilty of first degree murder.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong.
The riot/demonstration was about the police shooting Blake, a Black person, half a dozens times, at close range, for no reason.
So Rittenhouse was a bout preserving slavery, and doing it by intimidating people with a rifle.
That is identical to the intimidation of a lynch mob or cross burners.

But what is worst about this insane verdict, is that now it will be impossible to prevent gun control.
My argument against gun control was always that they guns are not the problem, and instead we simply have to incarcerate those who would abuse firearms.
But now I can not use that argument any more,
The case against Kyle was about as air tight as any case can be, any yet racism made it fail, so then the argument against gun control then fails as well.
If a 17 year old kid who could not even legally possess a rifle on his own, can beat these murders and shootings, then there is no argument left to defend gun possession at all.
The reaction is going to be assured gun control now, and there is nothing we now can do to stop it.

Wrong. Had Blake not been shot, there is a very real chance that he would have stabbed someone inside the car. That whole “for no reason” canard is itself just liberal dishonesty.

Whatever reason the rioting mob had for being there and doing their arson show, the fact is that they were in the wrong. Did you know that arson is a dangerous crime? It’s true! You could even look it up.

Also, Kyle was charged with a crime for possession of that rifle. That charge got dismissed because it turns out it WASN’T Illegal for him to possess it. Stooopid prosecutors.

Thank God Kyle HAD that rifle. Thank God this Constitutional Republic HAS the 2nd Amendment. It probably saved Kyle’s life.
This case ought to be a boon for the preservation of gun rights in America.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

 

[AZrailwhale]

the rioting communist that got shot brought a gun ! a gun he was forbidden to posses because he is a convicted felon !

He wasn’t a convicted felon, but his CCW permit had expired so carrying the gun like he did was illegal and I believe a felony in Wisconsin.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I was LITERALLY taught that in a gun class long ago.

By a lawyer who volunteered to give the classes.

He was dismissive of me --- (most of the class was male and hearty-looking) and my little gun, which didn't make enough noise when you slid the slide, the one noise he felt was guaranteed to scare off 90% of burglars, if you had a decent gun. (He meant it had to weigh 17 pounds, I think.) He was dismissive of ME because he said it didn't matter what I did, whether the guy was diving back out the window, running back down the stairs, whatever, no law would ever convict me of shooting a strange male home invader in my house.

I found that heartening, but fortunately, I've never had to test it.

I’ve had cops give me the same advice and Im six foot two and well over two hundred pounds.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong.
You can't go to a riot out of state, with a rifle, and claim "self defense".
It is not like he had property there to defend, or that the rioters had rifles.

The rioters were largely from out of town and out of state.

a person has every riot to show up at a town which is being targeted for rioting by rioters. It was perfectly legal for Kyle to be armed as he was.

He did have property there. And family. You really need to study more before posting. His dad lived there.

 

[jknowgood]

I rarely watch videos.

I thought it was pretty clear, that Mr. Rittenhouse shot three different subhuman pieces of shit, but only two of them died. Am I mistaken?

Look at the video, if not I can't help you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Look at the video, if not I can't help you.

I neither need nor want your “help”.

 

[dblack]

The culpability is in failing to do their job to control the rioters. It is their job to maintain law and order; and a right of the people to have their safety and order protected.

Sure. But the jackasses who handed Beaver Cleaver a gun and sent him into the middle of a race riot ought to have their nuts in a vice.

 

[BackAgain]

He wasn’t a convicted felon, but his CCW permit had expired so carrying the gun like he did was illegal and I believe a felony in Wisconsin.

Oddly, he wasn’t so charged. I wonder if that means you’re wrong.