- Banned
- #2,021
No, it was made up when I watched the kid getting attacked over and over on video.Well sure, that's what heavy bias is. I am sure your mind was made up upon reading the first headline.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, it was made up when I watched the kid getting attacked over and over on video.Well sure, that's what heavy bias is. I am sure your mind was made up upon reading the first headline.
No, it was made up when I watched the kid getting attacked over and over on video.
I don't agree.The video is good. It shows what happened during. It does not show us what led up to those events.
Like the McMichaels in Brunswick. The video shows us the events. But it does not show the sequence of events leading to the the shooting.
For that you need the narrative. And you need common sense.
In Fiction. The readers or viewers have to believe this could happen to be invested in the story. It is called suspension of disbelief.
In this case we have the same situation. We have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that Kyle was justified. We have to believe he had valid reasons for being where he should not have been. Okay we are running into problems.
As I said in my other response. He didn’t know anyone there. He wasn’t coming to the aid of a friend or family member.
We have to believe that Kyle didn’t expect trouble and was armed. Well just because. Yet he knew he was not permitted to legally own the weapon much less possess it. His associates were similarly armed and were talking about teaching the protestors a lesson. Well if Kyle didn’t expect trouble why would he go through the trouble to procure an illegal weapon?
Kyle claimed he was a paramedic. There was no way for him to be trained and certified at his age.
I believe in the right of self defense. I am a supporter. But for self defense to apply you have to be minding your own business before the event begins. You can’t start or escalate the situation. You can’t be looking for trouble.
If Kyle had been at the house of his sister when the people broke in and he killed them. I’d say justified. If Kyle had been at the car dealership owned by his uncle and was part of a family effort to defend it. I’d say probably justified. Maybe. Still the issue of the illegal weapon, but maybe.
But none of that is the case. Kyle wasn’t minding his business. Kyle was not where he belonged. Kyle was out playing life like a game. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.
And that means self defense is going to be a hard sell if the Prosecutor is able to establish that narrative.
Note that just before this, there's...Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
Horsepoop.In this case we have the same situation. We have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that Kyle was justified. We have to believe he had valid reasons for being where he should not have been. Okay we are running into problems.
Nonsense.I skimmed it. It was the usual. The problem is that you can’t claim self defense, or at least the claim is weak, if you are committing a crime, or looking for trouble. Kyle falls into both categories.
Why do you chase a person you know is armed with an AR15, othrt than to cause him harm?I'm willing to conjecture that if he had not been brandishing a wrongfully obtained weapon, brandishing it illegally in the state of Wisconsin.....well, this may just be me, but I suspect nobody would have been chasing him.
LOLOf course the demonstrators had the right to harm Rittenhouse.
An easy narrative to establish. If they rightfully perceived a threat from the person with the deadly weapon, they had the right to chase him off or fight for their lives. I know you think you are making some sort of amazing point, but you really are not.To believe Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense, you have to believe the people he shot had a right to chase him with the intent to harm him.
You do. You are not looking for trouble or initiating or escalating violence.If you are driving without a valid license, and someone attempts to carjack you, do you no longer have a right to defend yourself?
Great, let's see your proof Rosenbaum reached for the gun...
A mere lower ability thinking kid doesn't belong in a riot. Why would any parent let their kid go there? This doesn't to me play into the trial but that is the last place I'd let my kid go.
The video is good. It shows what happened during. It does not show us what led up to those events.
Like the McMichaels in Brunswick. The video shows us the events. But it does not show the sequence of events leading to the the shooting.
For that you need the narrative. And you need common sense.
In Fiction. The readers or viewers have to believe this could happen to be invested in the story. It is called suspension of disbelief.
In this case we have the same situation. We have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that Kyle was justified. We have to believe he had valid reasons for being where he should not have been. Okay we are running into problems.
As I said in my other response. He didn’t know anyone there. He wasn’t coming to the aid of a friend or family member.
We have to believe that Kyle didn’t expect trouble and was armed. Well just because.
Yet he knew he was not permitted to legally own the weapon much less possess it. His associates were similarly armed and were talking about teaching the protestors a lesson. Well if Kyle didn’t expect trouble why would he go through the trouble to procure an illegal weapon?
Kyle claimed he was a paramedic. There was no way for him to be trained and certified at his age.
I believe in the right of self defense. I am a supporter. But for self defense to apply you have to be minding your own business before the event begins. You can’t start or escalate the situation. You can’t be looking for trouble.
If Kyle had been at the house of his sister when the people broke in and he killed them. I’d say justified. If Kyle had been at the car dealership owned by his uncle and was part of a family effort to defend it. I’d say probably justified. Maybe. Still the issue of the illegal weapon, but maybe.
But none of that is the case. Kyle wasn’t minding his business. Kyle was not where he belonged. Kyle was out playing life like a game. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.
And that means self defense is going to be a hard sell if the Prosecutor is able to establish that narrative.
So you have no proof. Pretty much blows up Rittenhouse's shot at self-defense.That was a very sudden change of subject. Is that you way of admitting that I proved my point about leftard "reporters"?
Or, are you just sliming away from that for now, because I humiliated you, but you plan to come back to it later, late the Wally you are.
View attachment 521939
Well that's not true at all.An easy narrative to establish. If they rightfully perceived a threat from the person with the deadly weapon, they had the right to chase him off or fight for their lives. I know you think you are making some sort of amazing point, but you really are not.
Neither was he.You do. You are not looking for trouble or initiating or escalating violence.
So you have no proof. Pretty much blows up Rittenhouse's shot at self-defense.
Are you too dense to pay attention?LOL!!!! Chased by a mob, on video, and you think he needs evidence that the lead member of the attacking mob, did a specific attack?
LOL!!!
Your side has to prove that it was NOT self defense. If there is even a REASONABLE CHANCE THAT Rosenbaum was attacking Rittenhouse,
which, considering the video, is very reasonable,
the jury has to acquit.
Unless the fix is in.