Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
N583JB
Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
The age of Rittenhouse is valid. He committed a crime that night involved with the weapon used to kill people. Your assault on the victims for their past crimes shows that you have no regard for the facts of the case.
The pedophile had no way of knowing Rittenhouse's age. Yet he attacked Rittenhouse anyways.
How was he a pedophile? why wasn't he in jail? Perhaps you don't understand the law?
That video shows people trying to disarm Rittenhouse, not attack him.
He was a pedophile because he was convicted of a sex crime involving a child and spent 10 years in prison for it.
Attempting to "disarm" someone who is fleeing abd who is not to your knowledge breaking any law is not a defensive action.
casinterest
His prior record has no bearing. he was deemed safe to release after rehabilitation. That is how America works .
Rittenhouse had already shot someone. And his law breaking to have that gun present is valid. He didn't show good judgement in breaking the first law, which resulted in the deaths and injury to 3 people.
Where ever you go, there you are.
Rittenhouse had not shot anyone prior to him being chased down and attacked by the pedophile. So, why did the pedophile choose to attack him?
So you are off topic still. You have no argument here, as you can't even use the victim's name.
sixfootscream
WarRI1 wrote:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/08/31/trump-defends-rittenhouse-the-right-wing-kenosha-shooter-charged-with-killing-2-protesters/24606628/
There we have it folks, once again he criticizes the legal protesters and defends a Right winger who killed two other protesters.
Where do you have the information that Mr. Rittenhouse was a right-winger?
Kyle did nothing wrong!
sierrakilo44
sixfootscream wrote:
Attended a Trump rally.
Associated with a right wing militia group.
Pro Blue Lives Matter.
Pro Gun.
Get support from right wing media.
Wears ridiculous US flag Crocs
With a record like that I'm sure he'll be door knocking for Biden.... /s
What kind of "active shooter" stops and runs after shooting one person? Rittenhouse wasn't an "active shooter"; he shot one man who was coming after him as he was running away. He immediately tried to flee and didn't fire again until he fell down and was smacked on the head with a skateboard and then approached by another guy with a gun.
Whoops, might want to watch the first video again:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ABC/status/1 ... 0656622598
He came back a few seconds after the first shooting, then pulls out his phone and calls someone, saying "I just shot somebody" as he runs back towards the camera and the protesters. He isn't fleeing in self defence, he's bragging to a friend that he just "took out one of those Antifa thugs" whilst moving back towards those he was supposedly fleeing from. He isn't in fear of the protester group, he's running toward the protesters, so very good justification for the protesters trying to disarm him.
I'm one of the only ones on this board who routinely posts sources and links. And those sources and links are met with crickets. Like I said, facts have a strange way of shutting some people up.
Nope, I and multiple other posters have posted links on this thread. You've dismissed them out of hand because hey don't suit your narrative.
sierrakilo44 wrote:
He runs towards the police. This is very evidence by the videos of the subsequent engagement. Also, source for Rittenhouse saying that he just "took out one of those Antifa thugs"? Thanks in advance.
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm
Rosenbaum was trying to disarm a person breaking the law by intimidating people with a gun. ,. His criminal history has no bearing on the crime.
How did he know that Rittenhouse was breaking the law? He was filmed confronting Rittenhouse and the other armed protesters well before any shots rang out. Why did he not call the police if he thought there were dangerous gunmen present who were breaking the law? Why was he screaming the N word at people and telling people to shoot him?
Because dishonorable cowards with guns showed up to instigate a fight. There wasn't any castle doctrine involved for these folks other than to intimidate.
So this guy who was shot was only a peaceful protester I suppose. This kid showed up with a gun to protect the city that a lot of cities are going off the rails one Portland Oregon comes to mind. But he showed up with a long rifle in plain view so in that environment it invited trouble. But the guy who got shot actually all the 2 that were killed and the one injured all had criminal records so they were not there for a " peaceful protest" lets get that straight right off the bat. They were troublemakers who went after a kid who was also looking for trouble so they found it.. Oh and the one who survived the gunshot had a gun as well.
WarRI1
stratosphere wrote:
One thing to be carrying a gun, quite another to use it and kill two and wound one all at the tender age of 17. What is the tint on your glasses, rose colored?
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
C'mon, no one who uses the line of "self defence" immediately calls up a friend and brags about it.
I'll post the video again
1:52 the first shooting scene starts. Rittenhouse runs across the "Auto Service" building from right to left. There are no police visible. There are protesters to the right of screen in from of the "Auto Service" building, you can see them at 1:52-1:58. I count at least 12.
At 2:30, after the shooting and whilst making the phone call he runs back from left to right across the "Auto Service" building directly towards the camera. This is where the protesters are standing, we know this because of the video evidence at the start of that clip. We know they're there because we can hear their voices. He also runs back at the camera man.
Nowhere in that clip can we see police officers in that direction.
At no time can we hear police officers shouting commands, indicating they are not at that scene.
He's not running towards police, immediately after the first killing he's running directly back at protesters after having shot one of them. It's so obvious. If he was truly running away he would've continued to the left of screen or behind the "Auto Service" building, away from the camera and away from the threat. He doesn't.
This kid showed up with a gun to protect the city that a lot of cities are going off the rails one Portland Oregon comes to mind. But he showed up with a long rifle in plain view so in that environment it invited trouble. But the guy who got shot actually all the 2 that were killed and the one injured all had criminal records so they were not there for a " peaceful protest" lets get that straight right off the bat. They were troublemakers who went after a kid who was also looking for trouble so they found it.. Oh and the one who survived the gunshot had a gun as well.
Dahlia Lithwick put to rest the far right's argument that that the "kid showed up with a gun to protect the city" in a well-written, well-thought-out piece in Slate:
"All this has resurfaced in the fragile summer of 2020, chiefly because everyone I know in Portland has assured me that the city is not in fact "under attack" or "on fire" and also that the people who have come from afar to play at volunteer law enforcement are not from there at all. Self-appointed gangs of enforcers, in other words, are again laying claim to a small city, even though they are outsiders, and are again terrorizing protesters and locals under some imagined authority they think they have to go wherever they please, waving weapons and imposing what they believe to be law and order, even though their actions are neither lawful nor orderly in some cases. They have an unlimited right of access anywhere in the country, extending "stand your ground" or "castle" laws to any ground on which they stand."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... longs.html
This kid was a nobody trying to be a somebody. Killing two human beings, and injuring another, was just a means to that end. Shame on those who encouraged and abetted him... and shame on those who try to make him a hero. They will abandon him once he ceases to be useful for their political purposes. Shame on them.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
skyservice_330
"Bruh I'm just tryna be famous."
A craving to be famous... a past that involves dressing up to 'play cop' ... a propensity for violent behavior and the brutalization of females ...not a very flattering image of killer Rittenhouse that is emerging
Cities are going off the rails because of folks like Rittenhouse. Folks that flout the laws to make their own point. The protests which have most people legitimately protesting injustices are being railroaded by racists like Trump and his brand of lawbreakers, along with the fringe elements that seek attention by doing destructive deeds. This kid helped cause more damage than he could have ever sought to stop.
None of these things make you a right-winger.
Kyle did nothing wrong.
tommy1808
aside from breaking the law you mean?
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
tommy1808 wrote:
...and killing two people while doing so...
zkojq
Proud Boys violently attack BLM protectors. Police detain a couple of them temporarily and then let all of them walk free.
https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-rus ... rs-1530187
First to fly the 787-9
Which laws?
I thought he was underaged, so unlawful for him to be carrying a weapon. No license for an assault weapon, carrying firearms across state lines and last but not least yelling into a video camera "I just killed someone". He doesn't say anything about defending himself, he went out hunting and he bagged two kills. He never should've been there with a loaded assault rifle, that was the first link in the chain of reactions. It doesn't matter though, Trump will pardon him between now and year-end. Case closed.
He was sitting front row of a MAGA rally wearing a MAGA hat. And working closely with right wing militia groups makes you right wing. Oh, and there are his classmates
https://www.inquisitr.com/6249047/kyle- ... tes-trump/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7kpj ... smates-say
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
wingman wrote:
Lets get some fact straights here shall we?
The weapon was not transported from one state to the next. He was given it in the state he volunteered. So weapons trafficing charge, puff gone.
Mr. Rittenhouse was volunteering for the fire department and handing out medical aid to protestors the entire day and then put out a fire close to a gas pump. Doing his civic duty.
The mob got angry and start approaching him. He retreats. After a shot was fired (Not by Rittenhouse) he ran. So that he went out hunting is also incorrect.
The three people who attacked him are convicted felons. One of them carrying a gun which makes him a criminal as he is not allowed to carry firearm ever again once you been convicted of a crime. So now you have a case of a felon pulling a illegal gun on a 17 year old. Thats self-defence.
Him carrying a rifle under age will be a misdemeanor. That might be the only charge that will stick. (There is still a grey area in regards to the underage carry)
I suggest people and the media better not keep defaming Mr. Ritterhouse. Nick Sandman. Cough. Cough.
Again Kyle did nothing wrong.
seb146 wrote:
Oh no. A 17 year old said some stuff. Quick he is guilty.
Guess what I got a MAGA hat. Doesn't make me a right-winger.
aside of breaking the law, that you find quoted in full up threat. Whoever gave him the firearm as well. ... iirc that was actually a felony.
No because he was only 17. 17 year olds don't become fire department members, EMTs or any other public safety role. He was not an official member of any public safety group authorised to be on the streets that night. He may have thought he was, but he wasn't. EMTs also don't carry AR15s in the course of their duties.
The mob got angry and start approaching him.
No evidence of what happened before this incident. There is anecdotal evidence that Rittenhouse the wannabe cop was pointing his weapon at people in cars, and at protesters on the street:
https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/trend ... LPg6xPRglo
Jeremiah told USA Today he was trying to get to his car when he came across Rittenhouse, who was among a group of armed men in the parking lot of Car Source, a used car dealership across the street from Froedtert South Kenosha Medical Center.
Unprompted, Rittenhouse aimed his rifle at the 24-year-old Black man. He began shouting at Jeremiah, who shouted back.
The problem is too many people are basing their opinions off the videos posted on social media as if they are the only record of the event. Far more important are the witness statements given that we are not privy to that would've led police to file murder charges. They give the story of what happened prior to the first video recording starting.
He retreats. After a shot was fired (Not by Rittenhouse) he ran.
After the first shooting Rittenhouse makes a phone call and runs right towards, not away from, the people he is supposedly fleeing from in self defence
Rittenhouse has been charged with a crime, and media refer to his actions as alleged actions.
Unprompted, Rittenhouse aimed his rifle at the 24-year-old Black man. He began shouting at Jeremiah, who shouted back.[/i]
which btw. would be the exact moment anyone could take him down in self defense. Point a rifle or un-holster a hand gun, and its "now, or too late".
I suggest people and the media better not keep defaming Mr. Ritterhouse..
Kyller Rittenhouse is on video allegedly beating up a girl in July ... he doesn't need the help of the media to make him look bad. Stories are also emerging of him allegedly threatening classmates.
Again... a wannabe cop, craving to be able to demonstrate 'authority' , with a propensity for violence who crossed state lines to put himself into a heated situation. The man is no darling
skyservice_330 wrote:
Kyller Rittenhouse is on video beating up a girl in July ... he doesn't need the help of the media to make him look bad. Stories are also emerging of him threatening classmates. Again... a wannabe cop, craving to be able to demonstrate 'authority' , with a propensity for violence who crossed state lines to put himself into a heated situation. The man is no darling
The "man" is no man. He is a wimp of a boy, trying to prove his "manhood" by overcompensating for a basic inferiority complex. Lashing out at girls, posing as a wanna-be LEO, strutting around with a gun in a place where he didn't belong... he is the poster child for for immature naivete, oblivious to the needs and concerns anyone but himself.
His defenders should work harder to get him help, rather than denying who he is.
alfa164 wrote:
We all do stupid stuff when we are 17 so what is the big deal that he crossed state lines with a weapon he was not allowed to have in either state and ended up murdering two people then crossing back over state lines? What Trayvon Martin, Brionna Taylor, Tamir Rice, George Floyd, Phlando Castillo, Ahmed Aubry did was way worse. So terrible were their crimes, they did not deserve a trial by jury or any kind of legal representation. Monsters, every last one, right?
Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmermann. Zimmermann was cleared. Brionna Taylor was involved with drugs. George Floyd died of an overdose.
Ahmed Aubry is a difficult case because stand your ground applies.
But yeah I get the logic people are applying. I am no longer interested in engaging with anyone here. Some people can't see the forest for all the trees.
Don't want to get issued with another warning.
MaverickM11
Oh we're just flat out making up things now. Kewl.
I don't take responsibility at all
The facts are, he went out with a weapon, he shot two people to death and wounded another. He is in the shit with the law, his life is in the shit and rightfully so. Still two dead one wounded by certainly not a level headed or average teenager
Do you have any proof of any of this? Trayvon was being stalked. He did not have all the information until he was tackled by Zimmerman. Taylor was clean. Floyd died from a cop kneeling on his back. The home owner was not concerned with Aubry.
MaverickM11 wrote:
Where am I making up things?
Yes. You are right. Cool story bro.
YAY!!! I WIN!!! I ask for sources and I get sarcasm. That's fine but just be honest. I can respect you and disagree with you if you are honest. Until then, I just disagree with you.
I don't think anyone has a problem with protesters. People do have a problem with violent anarchists who seek to destroy property and attack people based on false narrarives about police brutality, though.
....and people that think they are the law.
Agreed. Unfortunately, I believe that vigilanteism is only going to get worse if the defund/anti-law enforcement continues. People who rightfully or wrongfully believe that the police are not going to protect them will feel the need to take the defense of their livelihoods into their own hands.
See I think that it is getting worse because of liars that don't understand what defund means. It means police aren't supposed to have to go and take people to psych wards, or negotiate domestic fights, or a half a dozen other items that keep them from being effective at doing real law enforcement.
Maybe that's why "defund the police" is a horrible slogan. If you have to explain that you don't really mean what you say, you've already lost the PR battle.
Vigilantism exactly what was going on. The one felon that got shot in the arm was chasing Rittenhouse was a felon. Possessing a firearm by a felon is a crime. One guy had tried to bash Rittenhouse with a skateboard, which was previously charged with domestic violence, "Use of Dangerous Weapon," "Strangulation & Suffocation," "False Imprisonment," and battery. He was ultimately convicted of strangling and falsely imprisoning a person.
These guys on the extreme edge of the left that are swinging skateboards, throwing rocks and trying to create mayhem are not nice people. Mainstream America isn't going to put up with it either. If it keeps going on its present course, it is going to get worse as N583JB pointed out above.
This case will be a can of worms, one way or another. But do not think for a minute that since he was underage, he could not use deadly force. Having your house broken in and being at a riot are two different things, but there are plenty of teens that have used deadly force when their homes are broken in to, and nothing happens to them.
PR battles are for politicians. People need solutions beyond populating the police with military equipment, and overly aggressive training .
Thinking defund the police will make things better is in for a rude awakening. The criminal elements are already emboldened by the lack of police effectiveness in cities like New York, Chicago Oakland, et al. The segment of society that is going to get it the worst, is the black communities. Based on statistics, it is the black-on-black crime the kills the most, e.g. Chicago. Appeasement doesn't work.
Cops are a small part of the problem. Sure, there are bad ones, but society has gone nuts in the last six months. Everyone wants to resist, get on video telling the police off. Society doesn't share any responsibility? Of course they do, but certain people ony want to hold Law Enforcement responsible.
Tiredofhumanity
One thing everyone is forgetting is that Wisconsin is one of the few states that considers 17 year olds as adults. Crossing state lines and using a weapon would be no different if he was 37, and the consequences would be the same.
Weapon charges dropped.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/10/13 ... acob-blake
Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, B777LRF, JJJ, jmdc861, Newark727, Paars, petertenthije, vikkyvik, YokoTsuno and 58 guests