The Rittenhouse Verdict

[Meister]

That in no way changes the law hotrod , he was a 17 year old with a gun he couldn't have ownership of at 17 and he couldn't carry any gun on the street at 17. Go right ahead and argue that, The judge in no way said it was legal ever hot rod and his decision not to try it did not make it legal or say it was legal. I call you Q anon because you are here trying to sell your q-anon bullshit. That should be obvious. You are obviously a q-anoner!

And yet the judge dismissed that charge against him because the barrel was short enough
for him to have it. By the way....where is the Qanon headquarters located?
grow up kid

 

[jbander]

Grosskreutz was also carrying his handgun holstered in the small of his back. His conceal-carry permit was expired at the time — which Grosskreutz said in testimony that he was unaware of that night.

The only person who survived being shot by Kyle Rittenhouse takes the stand

Gaige Grosskreutz, who was armed with a pistol on the night of the shooting, testified that his hands were raised when Rittenhouse pointed the rifle at him. He said he believed he "was going to die."

www.npr.org

That's right, now lets get back to the facts , The first guy pimple face killed he shot 4 times ,twice in the back because he threw paper at him. The next guy he killed was a hero trying to stop pimple boy from killing others and the third guy he shot , I wish he instead of trying to stop or take away pimple boys gun would had shot this little piece of shit instead, to stop him from getting shot himself and the guy before him getting killed , both being heroes .Then the other guy Grosskreutz could have been found not guillty with less dead and less shot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I disagree. He was somewhere he shouldn’t have been. I don’t believe that self-defense exists when you’ve already done something you shouldn’t have to begin with. The moment he left home to visit a riot, armed, he loses any/all moral high ground and sympathy from me.

He was somewhere he shouldn’t have been.

In America we're free to be somewhere you feel we shouldn't be.

I don’t believe that self-defense exists when you’ve already done something you shouldn’t have to begin with.

Because you're an idiot.

The moment he left home to visit a riot, armed, he loses any/all moral high ground and sympathy from me.

Luckily no one, especially Rittenhouse, needs, or wants, any sympathy from you.

 

[Gracie]

This is not a political issue. It’s a moral issue and neither party can claim the moral high ground these days. Republican or Democrat, and government employee or politician who ordered public safety departments not to do their job needs to be charged and lose their job.

I don’t make that much money. What I brag about is being able to provide for my family on that roughly $90K income. The other 5 people combined bring in less than $20K a year. All from the Government.

My employer is a large electric utility company. Messing with our stuff is a quick trip to a Federal Terrorism charge. We may be hated but people know better than to screw with us.

PG&E, huh? You company can kiss my ass. They burned down my town.

 

[AZrailwhale]

According to the law and prior cases, Rittenhouse could sue the United States on the state level (for Biden’s slanderous and harmful statement) or with enough time and money sue Biden as sitting president. No precedent against this as far as I can find.

Clinton being sued for sexual harassment established precedent that a sitting president can be sued for conduct that happened before being elected. Clinton had to plea out to perjury and lost his law license to avoid jail time. The interesting thing is, if he had been convicted, would the jail time be deferred until he was out of office, or would he have to resign.

 

[Gracie]

That's right, now lets get back to the facts , The first guy pimple face killed he shot 4 times ,twice in the back because he threw paper at him. The next guy he killed was a hero trying to stop pimple boy from killing others and the third guy he shot , I wish he instead of trying to stop or take away pimple boys gun would had shot this little piece of shit instead, to stop him from getting shot himself and the guy before him getting killed , both being heroes .Then the other guy Grosskreutz could have been found not guillty with less dead and less shot.

So..you consider child rapists heroes. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This is not a political issue. It’s a moral issue and neither party can claim the moral high ground these days. Republican or Democrat, and government employee or politician who ordered public safety departments not to do their job needs to be charged and lose their job.

I don’t make that much money. What I brag about is being able to provide for my family on that roughly $90K income. The other 5 people combined bring in less than $20K a year. All from the Government.

My employer is a large electric utility company. Messing with our stuff is a quick trip to a Federal Terrorism charge. We may be hated but people know better than to screw with us.

Actually, the relationship between politics and morality is much like the relationship between engineering and science. Engineering involves the application of science just as politics involves the writing of laws, the codification of such involving the apication of morality.

If you wish to discuss morality, though, I would be quite happy to discus Kohlberg's stages of moral development with you. The domestic terrorists, for instance, operate in what he considers the most primitive state, which he calls "pre-conventional" in that primitive state, all a person understands is whether an action involves punishment. Since Denocrats have removed the punishment, their actions follow accordingly.

 

[Gracie]

Shittenhouse and pimple face. You know they know they lose the verbal battle when they resort to name calling. lol. What's next? Calling him hitler?

 

[Meister]

That's right, now lets get back to the facts , The first guy pimple face killed he shot 4 times ,twice in the back because he threw paper at him. The next guy he killed was a hero trying to stop pimple boy from killing others and the third guy he shot , I wish he instead of trying to stop or take away pimple boys gun would had shot this little piece of shit instead, to stop him from getting shot himself and the guy before him getting killed , both being heroes .Then the other guy Grosskreutz could have been found not guillty with less dead and less shot.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - James R. Schlesinger

Now run along and tell your science instructor that you did your extra credit.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No. I’m one of those people who believe it is the job of local, state, and federal law enforcement to deal with mobs and protesters on the streets; not children who should have been at home working on their school projects.

He doesn’t understand how to mind his own business and keep his nose out if other people’s business. That is a MAJOR Moral failing in my mind.

And what is the recourse when government REFUSES to do its job? Historically the public stands up and takes action on its own. Your point of view seems to be that we owe the government obedience, not that the government owes it to us. The design of our country is that government draws its powers from the consent of the people. It has no inherent power.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So..you consider child rapists heroes. Why am I not surprised.

I am a productive member of society and own a small business. It is understandable why I identify with productive members of society who have seen their businesses burned. They are my people as it were.

Similarly, those who identify only with child rapists, arsonists and looters are showing solidarity with THEIR people.

 

[AZrailwhale]

He should stay home next time.
That would be the wisest thing for him to do.
Stay home and watch a movie and let the cops and Guard etc do law enforcement.

What’s the old saying? Something on the order of “ all evil needs to thrive is for good men to do nothing”.

 

[ClaireH]

Clinton being sued for sexual harassment established precedent that a sitting president can be sued for conduct that happened before being elected. Clinton had to plea out to perjury and lost his law license to avoid jail time. The interesting thing is, if he had been convicted, would the jail time be deferred until he was out of office, or would he have to resign.

Before posting I reviewed that Clinton case, as I’d forgotten the details…. well, there’s one or two frightening details about that case I still try to get out of my head lol but you’re right because the Paula Jones and all that happened prior to his presidency she was able to sue him. Other sources still back that a sitting president can be sued but it is very expensive and time consuming to do so. It provides a legal way to sue if the statements made are not considered “official government business” but I might be using the wrong words there. I’ll find the source I read and will come back to post it.

“In the United States’ history, four sitting presidents have been subject to suits for private actions. Suits against Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman were dismissed and one involving President John F. Kennedy was settled. The fourth, Paula Jones’ lawsuit against President Bill Clinton, formed the basis of the 1997 Supreme Court of the United States case, Clinton v. Jones. In that case, the Supreme Court distinguished between “official” and “unofficial” conduct and ruled that a sitting president may be sued for the latter, but not the former.”

I’m not a lawyer but it appears to me that Biden’s statements about Kyle Rittenhouse were made under unofficial capacity of conduct.

The Legality of Suing a Sitting President

President Donald Trump has recently been subjected to civil lawsuits by women claiming that he lied about them in public fora

lawshelf.com

 

[Dogmaphobe]

무장한 한국인들....폭동은 없다.

My younger son can read Korean.

I might have to run this one past him.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Let's play a quick game. Let's imagine white folks were out politically demonstrating about something, and some of them were tearing shit up.

Then let's imagine a 17 year old black guy from the neighboring state were to come to the scene of the protest worried (rightly or wrongly) about the possibility of property destruction, and carrying a gun he wasn't supposed to have

And let's imagine some right-wing white guys were to taunt him and chase him. (putting aside the fact that he'd already have been shot dead by cops or one of those white guys) imagine he then shot several of those protesters

Does anyone really think a self defense claim would have worked in that case ? Do you think the white guys defending Shittenhouse would have rallied to that Black guy's defense, even after it was HE who came with the gun and inserted himself in the situation ?

You changed some important facts, but yes a self defense claim would work. It could certainly work under identical circumstances if his assailants were white. If he were black, we would never have even heard of the shooting, a black shooting other blacks is not newsworthy, it would be buried on page fifteen of the local paper and not even mentioned on the news. Dog bites man isn’t news, man bites dog is.

 

[Opie]

Rye, I see you're just following the flawed narrative of your preferred media.
Kyle DID NOT cross into Wi. with a firearm.
The firearm WAS legal for him.
He fired in self defense, Rye.

I do hope you never serve on a jury, Rye, there is no way in hell you
could ever be an impartial juror.

It’s crazy we have to explain this to people. I know some that think he shot 3 black men. Smh

 

[AZrailwhale]

This is how I like systematic racism. Just plain out in the open. No hiding

What systemic racism? Rittenhouse was white, all three men he shot were white, the only black was dropkick guy and he wasn’t even charged with anything although Rittenhouse was charged for attempting to shoot him.

 

[Gracie]

Q=anon

I=Idiot

 

[AZrailwhale]

They aren't going to charge Grosskreutz?

No, it will look like retaliation for torpedoing their case against Rittenhouse. He will get away Scot free for attempted murder and carrying a concealed weapon without a license.

 

[Ringtone]

Does this verdict encourage vigilantism? Are we going to see more people carrying guns at places of violence and riots, or even peaceful protests? If so, then one might assume there will be shootings and killings; the next time it could be a future kid like Rittenhouse who dies. The case may have turned out the way it should have given the specific facts, but what are the ramifications? More people with more guns.

The ramifications would be that American citizens know they have the right to oppose rampant lawlessness and that politicians who permit leftist scumbags to engage in lawlessness are pieces of shit. And let's get something straight here. Rittenhouse did not engage in vigilantism. That's nonsense. He stood ready to defend lives and property, and was assailed by a mob of leftist scum who didn't like it.