The Rittenhouse Verdict

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hypothetically mens rea was not present in the minds of the jury. Taking into consideration:

• the defendant asked another to buy him a weapon
• he then crossed into Wisconsin from his home state with said firearm
• he used it killing two human beings and maiming another.

No one can read the mind of any other person, yet common sense suggest to me that these factors were his intention to be seen as a hero, much like Zimmerman.

Was there sufficient and necessary facts beyond a reasonable doubt to acquit KR? Apparently the jurors thought so, and I didn't hear any of the testimony; thus I have nothing to decide first degree homicide.

However, the consequences of this decision are very disturbing.

he then crossed into Wisconsin from his home state with said firearm

Wrong!

 

[PoliticalChic]

In Texas I can carry a gun without needing permit, concealed or not. I am not much interested in the laws of other states, IMHO that is their business. But I will say that the federal gov't shouldn't have any say at all in that regard.

Yeah, I know about LEs not being legally required to protect me. Hence, I don't go to places where I might need protection, or at least the risk is quite low. I do have my 9mm semi under the front seat of my car though, you just never know when some crazy is going to start shooting. But that shit doesn't happen around where I live.

My younger son can read Korean.

I might have to run this one past him.

You can test him: "Armed Koreans....no riots."


How'd he learn Korean?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I said ,Q-anon you are full of shit. the second guy was not shot before the third guy with a gun got there you idiot.

See the dead guy in the lower right corner at 3:14?
See the idiot, let's call him "Lefty" with his hands up on the left of the frame?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyone who looked cross eyed at pimple boy anyone around him. , he was there to kill. He was attacked by the second two because he had just shot a guy 4 times twice in the back for no reason other then the first guy threw paper at him. The next two were there to stop pimple boy from shooting someone else for throwing paper at him. You don't have the facts , you are making them up Q-anon.

Anyone who looked cross eyed at pimple boy anyone around him.

And yet, he only shot the 3 attackers.

He was attacked by the second two because he had just shot a guy 4 times twice in the back for no reason

Just shot? How long before? No reason? How did the child rapist get powder burns on his hands?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Given your thoughts above do you have one on the precedence of RK's actions?

RK?

Can you rephrase your question? Maybe you meant to use a different word?

 

[skews13]

The idiot goes Scott free, there is no justice in America anymore.

Just remember. The precedent is a two way street. Any one of these domestic terrorists openly carrying a rifle at a protest, is a legitimate target now.

Any normal person will feel that their life is in danger, and can, and quite possibly should, exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and defend themselves.

Which should be from behind a barrier, with a rifle or shot gun, and take careful aim to eliminate the threat. You will be a hero for defending your community.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They didn’t. I’ve never said they did. In fact I’ve commented several times that they shouldn’t have been their either. Nobody needed to be on those streets that night.

The fact that the protesters were there inappropriately doesn’t make Kyle’s presence there any more acceptable. It definitely doesn’t make shooting anyone (for any reason) an acceptable act.

The fact that the protesters were there inappropriately doesn’t make Kyle’s presence there any more acceptable.

Or his self-defense any less obvious.

 

[eagle1462010]

Just remember. The precedent is a two way street. Any one of these domestic terrorists openly carrying a rifle at a protest, is a legitimate target now.

Any normal person will feel that their life is in danger, and can, and quite possibly should, exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and defend themselves.

Which should be from behind a barrier, with a rifle or shot gun, and take careful aim to eliminate the threat. You will be a hero for defending your community.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So was Rittenhouse.

And?

 

[Ringo]

Does this verdict encourage vigilantism? Are we going to see more people carrying guns at places of violence and riots...?

I hope so.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You can test him: "Armed Koreans....no riots."


How'd he learn Korean?

He is studying at the U in hopes of becoming an English as a second language instructor in a couple of years.

I just made him promise not to take the train to Busan.



You know, cause, like........... zombies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Retaliation?
He committed a crime, charge him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just remember. The precedent is a two way street. Any one of these domestic terrorists openly carrying a rifle at a protest, is a legitimate target now.

Any normal person will feel that their life is in danger, and can, and quite possibly should, exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and defend themselves.

Which should be from behind a barrier, with a rifle or shot gun, and take careful aim to eliminate the threat. You will be a hero for defending your community.

Any normal person will feel that their life is in danger, and can, and quite possibly should, exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and defend themselves.

Any skateboard wielding thug can now be taken out, eh?

 

[Anathema]

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

Nope. Wrong side of the country. I’m in the Northeast.

nd what is the recourse when government REFUSES to do its job?

The courts and the voting booth.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Just remember. The precedent is a two way street. Any one of these domestic terrorists openly carrying a rifle at a protest, is a legitimate target now.

Any normal person will feel that their life is in danger, and can, and quite possibly should, exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and defend themselves.

Which should be from behind a barrier, with a rifle or shot gun, and take careful aim to eliminate the threat. You will be a hero for defending your community.

You internet tough guys are so funny.

 

[task0778]

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. But 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.

Maybe it depends on what the definition of vigilantism is. According to the Cambridge dictionary, vigilantism is the practice of ordinary people in a place taking unofficial action to prevent crime or to catch and punish people believed to be criminals. In that context, Rittenhouse did engage in vigilantism, however beneficent his motives were. But there's an issue here, which is if you take up arms like he did then you have possibly upped the ante so to speak regarding violence and bloodshed. The risk of someone else getting shot or killed was higher than it might have been had he not been there. He in effect added to the problem and made the situation more dangerous, so I wonder whether having more people with more guns in the middle of a riot is the way to go in such situations.

vigilantism

1. the practice of ordinary people in a place taking unofficial action to…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"The ramifications would be that American citizens know they have the right to oppose rampant lawlessness"

Sure they do, but I am not sure that right extends to taking to the streets with guns with no authority or control over using them. It's one thing for family, friends, and neighbors to band together in a group to patrol their neighborhoods and call the cops if trouble looks imminent. It's another to threaten anyone with a gun, like that couple did in or near St Louis I think it was. I have no problem with anyone defending themselves with guns, their family, and their home. But once you leave your property it becomes a different story; do you want to be the one that shoots at a bad guy and instead hits an innocent kid? I don't.

 

[skews13]

You internet tough guys are so funny.

Typical response from an internet idiot that just got triggered.

Be careful if you go out now with your AR at a protest somewhere. Some poor scared citizen just might feel the need to defend their community.

 

[ClaireH]

He is studying at the U in hopes of becoming an English as a second language instructor in a couple of years.

I just made him promise not to take the train to Busan.



You know, cause, like........... zombies.

A smart career choice as well as smart kid! Learning Korean blows my mind as an American limited to understanding written Spanish. Your son will have unlimited job opportunities knowing Korean in a field that he enjoys- double bonus.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Typical response from an internet idiot that just got triggered.

Be careful if you go out now with your AR at a protest somewhere. Some poor scared citizen just might feel the need to defend their community.

You wish you had the power to trigger me.

 

[Hardcandy]

Let them protest. AS LONG as they remain peaceful. They get out of hand, they need to be arrested.

That's all fine and dandy except according to the MSM/Democrat "Peaceful Protest Manual";
rioting, vandalism, looting, burning, assaulting and murdering aren't just OK; they're encouraged.
And if not, there's at least an unspoken agreement to just look away and deny what is happening.
And hope nobody notices...