US Politics

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Dascow said:

Amy Siskind is a moron. The song on the ringer was God Bless The USA. A pretty popular and patriotic song.

What Amy Siskind seems to have missed, is what the defence lawyer was talking about before the phone rang. The defence was talking about issuing a mistrial with prejudice because the prosecution broke some major rules in the cross with Kyle.

If Kyle Rittenhouse does not get acquitted, there are some real problems with the justice system. All of the evidence points to self defence.  This one is obvious.

The prosecution is bungling the case now doubt... but self defense for a guy who escalated the situation?  Not buying it. Guy went looking for trouble. Perhaps they are charging him with the wrong crimes but that kid is a murdering sack of **** and deserves jail time. But as I said the prosecution is ******* clownshoes.

[Dascow]

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The prosecution is bungling the case now doubt... but self defense for a guy who escalated the situation?  Not buying it. Guy went looking for trouble. Perhaps they are charging him with the wrong crimes but that kid is a murdering sack of **** and deserves jail time. But as I said the prosecution is ******* clownshoes.

You clearly know nothing about the facts. He didn't escalate anything. He was desperately trying to run away from the danger and in every case he was attacked.

Rosenbaum chased him through a parking lot, screamed at him, FU and then lunged at him and tried to grab his gun. (The prosecution's witness, Richie McGinniss, testified to this.)

Anthony Huber cracked him over the head with a skate board and then grabbed his gun.

Gaige Grosskreutz testified himself that when he had his hands up, Kyle Rittenhouse did not fire, it was only when he dropped his arms, aimed the gun at Kyle's head and moved towards Kyle that Kyle fired.

 

Rittenhouse is not a POS and deserves zero jail time. It's a clear example of self defence.

[17to85]

4 minutes ago, Dascow said:

You clearly know nothing about the facts. He didn't escalate anything. He was desperately trying to run away from the danger and in every case he was attacked.

Rosenbaum chased him through a parking lot, screamed at him, FU and then lunged at him and tried to grab his gun. (The prosecution's witness, Richie McGinniss, testified to this.)

Anthony Huber cracked him over the head with a skate board and then grabbed his gun.

Gaige Grosskreutz testified himself that when he had his hands up, Kyle Rittenhouse did not fire, it was only when he dropped his arms, aimed the gun at Kyle's head and moved towards Kyle that Kyle fired.

 

Rittenhouse is not a POS and deserves zero jail time. It's a clear example of self defence.

He travelled to the area with weapons for the express purpose of "protecting property".... you gonna actually say with a straight face that that isn't a guy looking for trouble? At best he's a vigilante which is still a crime, at worst he's a **** head who wanted an excuse to shoot people. 

What happened after that isn't really the crux of the issue. The issue is the guy put himself in that situation. 

[bustamente]

 

[Dascow]

Like I said, you know nothing of the facts.

He did not travel to the area with weapons.

He did not travel there for the express purpose of "protecting property" and he wasn't "a guy looking for trouble".  Unlike the rioters who travelled there to burn down property.

He travelled to Kenosha because he works there as a lifeguard. After his job he went to a local school to clean up graffiti left by the rioters. It was after all of that, that he went to a car dealership to help keep the rioters away. The rioters burned down the other car dealership and every car in the lot the previous night, so the owners asked for help to keep the rioters away.

However, Kyle was there as a medic as was seen helping in this capacity. Kyle literally spent the whole night putting out fires and helping people with injuries.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but the people burning down the buildings are the bad guys, not the ones protecting them.

 

 

"The issue is the guy put himself in that situation." 

lol And a woman who wears a short skirt and gets raped, put herself in that position right? Nonsense.

"What happened after that isn't really the crux of the issue."

Nope, the crux of the issue is that those 3 people attacked Kyle unprovoked and Kyle acted in self defence.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

[Dascow]

8 minutes ago, bustamente said:

 

This video is ridiculous. lol You should be embarrassed. 😅😂

 

Forget about the facts...just use emotionally charged rhetoric and mention Trump...and there's your argument. lol

The prosecutions argument in this video about Kyle having the AR15 and Gaige having the hand gun was one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Gaige was moving towards Kyle, faked having his hands up and then proceeded towards him again, but this time with the weapon aimed at his head. This all happened within the span of seconds. Kyle had a gun aimed at his head and feared for his life.  Kyle did not fire until Gaige moved closer and had the gun pointed at his head. (This was admitted my Gaige himself.) Clearly grounds for self defence.

 

The fact that you can see Kyle's reaction and think that is somehow fake is sad. The kid clearly had a panic attack. It was real and I saw it live. My goodness the reaction by these people to Kyles tears and emotional breakdown is just gross.  People have really lost their humanity.

 

Oh and by the way, the judge isn't biased. He is considering a mistrial with prejudice because the prosecution broke a major rule, not once, but twice. There are those who are speculating, namely the defence, that the prosecution broke these rules on purpose to get a mistrial. He wants a mistrial because this trial has gone so bad for him that he wants to start over. The prosecution is not acting in good faith.

[17to85]

So the gun just magically appeared in his hands? Pretty sure there's words from his own mouth in the trial that he was there to protect property. Get your head outta your ass, the guy went looking for trouble and you gotta be some kind of ignorant to not see that. Like I said, at best he is a vigilante... and that's not a good thing. Guys like that don't get to take the law into their own hands. 

That video is made with a bias, but you have to consider that there is truth in some of that. 

why on earth do people defend human trash like this? You can hold the position that rioters and the people who go there to "police" them and wind up killing them are trash too. Guy murdered 2 people and wounded a third. Why defend him? 

[JCon]

9 hours ago, 17to85 said:

So the gun just magically appeared in his hands? Pretty sure there's words from his own mouth in the trial that he was there to protect property. Get your head outta your ass, the guy went looking for trouble and you gotta be some kind of ignorant to not see that. Like I said, at best he is a vigilante... and that's not a good thing. Guys like that don't get to take the law into their own hands. 

That video is made with a bias, but you have to consider that there is truth in some of that. 

why on earth do people defend human trash like this? You can hold the position that rioters and the people who go there to "police" them and wind up killing them are trash too. Guy murdered 2 people and wounded a third. Why defend him? 

If he was black, you know what the narrative would be.

[JCon]

The racist f*** travelled across state lines to shoot people. Succeeds (probably for the first time in his life) and will get off because the racist hellhole of the country below us is so f***ing messed up. 

[17to85]

12 hours ago, Dascow said:

 

"The issue is the guy put himself in that situation." 

lol And a woman who wears a short skirt and gets raped, put herself in that position right? Nonsense

The only nonsense in this case is your comparison as you are defending the equivalent of the rapist in this analogy.

[Dascow]

10 hours ago, 17to85 said:

So the gun just magically appeared in his hands? Pretty sure there's words from his own mouth in the trial that he was there to protect property. Get your head outta your ass, the guy went looking for trouble and you gotta be some kind of ignorant to not see that. Like I said, at best he is a vigilante... and that's not a good thing. Guys like that don't get to take the law into their own hands. 

That video is made with a bias, but you have to consider that there is truth in some of that. 

why on earth do people defend human trash like this? You can hold the position that rioters and the people who go there to "police" them and wind up killing them are trash too. Guy murdered 2 people and wounded a third. Why defend him? 

Typical case of projection.

You're the ignorant one.

"Pretty sure there's words from his own mouth in the trial that he was there to protect property."

Here is an interview of Kyle Rittenhouse by Richie McGinniss on why he was there that evening.

Richie McGinniss: What are you doing out here, obviously you're armed and your in front of this building we saw burning last night so what's up?

Kyle Rittenhouse: People are getting injured and our job is to protect his business and part of my job is also helping people, if there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harms way, that's why I have my rifle because I can protect myself. I also have my med kit.

I apologize, I forgot that protecting property is a crime. I forgot that deterring the rioters from burning down a building is a crime. I apologize, I forgot that trying to stop rioters from burning down a building makes you a POS. I also forgot that bringing a med kit and trying to help the injured is "looking for trouble"   lol so dumb...

 

There is ZERO evidence that Kyle was there "looking for trouble". In fact there is evidence that he was there for the exact opposite. Kyle Rittenhouse according to the multiple videos and multiple witnesses, was entirely peaceful the whole night. He literally spent the night putting out fires and helping injured people. We have video evidence of this. At no point was he aggressive or threatening people. If you have any evidence of this, I would love to see it.

 

There is a lot of evidence that Joseph Rosenbaum was there "looking for trouble". He was threatening people, starting fires and causing trouble all night. There is also witness and video evidence of this.

But again you don't care about the facts.  Your problem with Kyle is that he had a gun. (Which he got in Kenosha and didn't "cross state lines" with.) That's it. That's what has triggered you.

Here are some facts that you are conveniently ignoring:

If Joseph Rosenbaum does not stalk, chase and then attack Kyle Rittenhouse no one would have been killed. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away. How is someone who is running away considered "looking for trouble". Give me a break.

After Roenbaum is shot, Kyle turns and starts running away from the mob. He is running to the police. We know he was trying to get to the police because there is a video of him saying, I'm trying to go to the police. That video was taken by Gaige Grosskreutz. So Gaige Grosskreutz KNEW he was trying to get to the police.

If Anthony Huber does not attack Kyle by cracking him in the head for a second time, with a skateboard, while Kyle is lying on his back, and grab his gun, Huber does not get killed. By the way, it was Anthony Huber who cracked Kyle in the head the first time, while he was running towards the police. It was that blow that eventually caused him to stumble and fall, which left Kyle in this vulnerable position sitting on the ground. 

If Gaige Grosskreutz doesn't move in on Kyle who is in a defenceless position, and point his gun at Kyle's head, Grosskreutz doesn't get shot.

The only people that got shot that night were people who initiated the attack! That's a fact.

Kyle Rittenhouse attacked ZERO people!

 

But go ahead, ignore all of the facts and let your emotions run away with you.

51 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The only nonsense in this case is your comparison as you are defending the equivalent of the rapist in this analogy.

lol. You live in a pseudo reality. Sad.

[17to85]

You bring a gun you aren't legally allowed to have to a riot you are looking for trouble I don't care what kind of excuses you make after the fact. Again as i said earlier they're probably trying him for the wrong things here and the prosecution ain't gonna make the charges stick... but that doesn't change anything about this piece of ****. It's not his job to protect these buildings. It's not his job to be putting put fires. And property is never more important than people's lives, even if they are pieces of **** too. 

So you get a whole pile of shitty people in a volatile situation with guns and this osnwhay happens. There is a reason vigilantes aren't allowed. 

 

But yeah you go on believing that this peace loving kid just happened to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You know what is worse than being caught in a riot? Being caught in a riot while holding a rifle opposite those rioters. He had no business being there and he had even less business being there with a rifle.

[Dascow]

7 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You bring a gun you aren't legally allowed to have to a riot you are looking for trouble I don't care what kind of excuses you make after the fact. Again as i said earlier they're probably trying him for the wrong things here and the prosecution ain't gonna make the charges stick... but that doesn't change anything about this piece of ****. It's not his job to protect these buildings. It's not his job to be putting put fires. And property is never more important than people's lives, even if they are pieces of **** too. 

So you get a whole pile of shitty people in a volatile situation with guns and this osnwhay happens. There is a reason vigilantes aren't allowed. 

 

But yeah you go on believing that this peace loving kid just happened to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You know what is worse than being caught in a riot? Being caught in a riot while holding a rifle opposite those rioters. He had no business being there and he had even less business being there with a rifle.

You have no right telling a free man where he can or can't be.

The rioters have no right telling a free man where he can or can't be.

Kyle has a right to self defence. Whether you think he should have been there or not.

No one got shot protecting buildings. No one got shot over property.

NO ONE!

Kyle was chased and attacked and acted in self defence. All of the facts show this.

The facts are clear in this case 17to85. I have noticed that you ignore the facts and you zone in on what kind of person you think Kyle is. But you have no idea what kind of person Kyle is because your are ignoring all of the evidence.

 

 

[17to85]

He only needed to exert that right to self defence because of his own actions! You really are missing the entire point. Yes he will walk on those charges,  but only because the US holds their right to self defense so dear. Doesn't mean he isn't a murdering piece of ****. 

Let me guess, your side of the story is entirely framed by the right wing media trying to make this double into some kind of martyr.

[bustamente]

Hey if the former ass wipe can use his thugs to clear a path using violence for a photo op than surely this wanna be protector of freedom pos can kill anyone he wants to when he feels threatened. Grab your guns boys we got a civil war a coming.

[SpeedFlex27]

I'll never forget about 16 years ago, my son & I were driving back to Calgary from Portland & we stopped for gas in C'ouer D'Alene, Idaho for gas & munchies. We went inside to pay for all of it with my then 15 year old son. There was a guy in his 20's with a holstered gun on his waist.  Idaho is a gun carry State. He was just walking around the store with a smirk letting us all know he was locked & loaded. Almost like he was daring someone to start something with him. I was standing directly behind him at the cashier. The one problem with an attitude like that is if he wants trouble he'll find trouble. He'll meet someone who'll have no hesitation to use his weapon against him first.

[Eternal optimist]

28 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'll never forget about 16 years ago, my son & I were driving back to Calgary from Portland & we stopped for gas in C'ouer D'Alene, Idaho for gas & munchies. We went inside to pay for all of it with my then 15 year old son. There was a guy in his 20's with a holstered gun on his waist.  Idaho is a gun carry State. He was just walking around the store with a smirk letting us all know he was locked & loaded. Almost like he was daring someone to start something with him. I was standing directly behind him at the cashier. The one problem with an attitude like that is if he wants trouble he'll find trouble. He'll meet someone who'll have no hesitation to use his weapon against him first.

That is just sad.

[SpeedFlex27]

4 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

That is just sad.

Yes, as carrying a gun in public is just asking for trouble. As we see in what Kyle Rittenham did. I haven't paid much attention to the trial but I also believe he'll get off. Bringing a gun to a riot & people died? There should be no surpise that happened. 

[Tracker]

Most of us in Canada have no idea how integrated gun culture is into American society. A few years ago, the wife and I were returning from  Ontario via the south of the Great Lakes route. We were having breakfast when a local came in after pulling up to the restaurant in a truck with the mandatory gunrack with rifles. He sat at the table next to us and we struck up a conversation. His knowledge of Canada will stunningly bare- he even asked if we had churches. I tried to shrug it off by saying that we were much like Americans but with free healthcare instead of guns. He paused a moment and then stated that he would rather have his gins.

A friend and his wife were snowbirding near Yuma in a gated community that was largely park models. They stopped going a few years ago because many of the Americans began to start carrying sidearms while walking to the convenience store in the compound. This while wearing shorts, T-shirts and flipflops. He said that what scared them was that the more guns that appeared, the less people interacted with each other and stayed in their homes. 

[bustamente]

There is no reason in the world to have a handgun strapped to your thigh, this isn't the 1800's, same goes for anyone walking around with a fully loaded AR 15 you are not in the Army nor are you at war, all this is about is an image of toughness, intimidation and strength using the 2nd amendment that is horribly out of date and archaic as there crutch and of course for the makers to make millions and millions of dollars

Edited November 12, 2021 by bustamente

[TrueBlue4ever]

And I believe that Rittenhouse will be acquitted, and that under the laws of the USA he will have a defence that will be accepted. And that to my mind is the problem. In most democratic nations just showing up with a semi-automatic rifle to any public gathering if you are not military or police would be a crime, and if you used that weapon to kill someone, you would not be perceived as defending against a threat, YOU would be the threat. The USA is an embarrassment that this kind of logic does not apply but “stand your ground” is considered good law. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by TrueBlue4ever

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

6 hours ago, Dascow said:

You have no right telling a free man where he can or can't be.

The rioters have no right telling a free man where he can or can't be.

Kyle has a right to self defence. Whether you think he should have been there or not.

No one got shot protecting buildings. No one got shot over property.

NO ONE!

Kyle was chased and attacked and acted in self defence. All of the facts show this.

The facts are clear in this case 17to85. I have noticed that you ignore the facts and you zone in on what kind of person you think Kyle is. But you have no idea what kind of person Kyle is because your are ignoring all of the evidence.

 

 

So if Rittenhouse was killed that night because people viewed him as a threat with his AR15 and the fact he already killed someone... would yiu be defending these "antifa" thugs?

 

Also, I am very interested in your response to the above Kenneth Ray McCain quote.

Edited November 12, 2021 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Tracker]

Kyle Rittenhouse judge is 'putting his thumb on the scale in every way possible': MSNBC analyst
   
The judge presiding over Kyle Rittenhouse's murder trial is a "racist' who's "putting his thumb on the scale in every way possible" in favor of the defendant, according to MSNBC legal analyst Elie Mystal.

Mystal, an attorney who serves as the Nation magazine's justice correspondent, said Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder has "a history of disregarding civil rights information and rulings."

"If you look at his specific history in this case, all of his pretrial motions tended to favor Kyle Rittenhouse, even leading up to this trial, and then certainly his behavior in the trial as the presiding officer of the trial, has just been grotesque in terms of his combativeness with the prosecution, his willingness to let the defense slide on many issues, his American flag tissue box, his cell phone ringtone that is actually the same song that is played at the beginning of Trump rallies," Mystal said.

"It's never just one thing," he added. "It's not just one issue or one decision. I'm not saying one plus one equals two. I'm saying one plus one plus one plus one plus one equals five, and while you can try to defend any individual decision, when you look at the totality of his actions, what you have is a racist, biased judge who is putting his thumb on the scale in every way he can for the defense and for Rittenhouse in this case."

Host Jason Johnson responded by noting that if a judge's ringtone played a "Black Lives Matter anthem," people would likely take issue, but Schroeder is "getting away with it."

Kyle Rittenhouse judge is 'putting his thumb on the scale in every way possible': MSNBC analyst - Alternet.org

[Eternal optimist]

3 hours ago, Tracker said:

Most of us in Canada have no idea how integrated gun culture is into American society. A few years ago, the wife and I were returning from  Ontario via the south of the Great Lakes route. We were having breakfast when a local came in after pulling up to the restaurant in a truck with the mandatory gunrack with rifles. He sat at the table next to us and we struck up a conversation. His knowledge of Canada will stunningly bare- he even asked if we had churches. I tried to shrug it off by saying that we were much like Americans but with free healthcare instead of guns. He paused a moment and then stated that he would rather have his gins.

A friend and his wife were snowbirding near Yuma in a gated community that was largely park models. They stopped going a few years ago because many of the Americans began to start carrying sidearms while walking to the convenience store in the compound. This while wearing shorts, T-shirts and flipflops. He said that what scared them was that the more guns that appeared, the less people interacted with each other and stayed in their homes. 

I mean, I never had much desire to go the US before, but ever since Trump had been elected, short of flying through the US to other countries post-COVID... hard pass. Honestly I'd much rather stay in Canada - explore the Yukon or something. Way cheaper and more peaceful - plus less chance of getting killed, apparently.

[Eternal optimist]

2 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

And I believe that Rittenhouse will be acquitted, and that under the laws of the USA he will have a defence that will be accepted. And that to my mind is the problem. In most democratic nations just showing up with a semi-automatic rifle to any public gathering if you are not military or police would be a crime, and if you used that weapon to kill someone, you would not be perceived as defending against a threat, YOU would be the threat. The USA is an embarrassment that this kind of logic does not apply but “stand your ground” is considered good law. 

I mean, the original concept of it was somewhat rational. It was originally for cases of homeowners defending themselves in their home. The typical logic would be if someone broke into your residence, because it is your home, you'd be justified in using otherwise unreasonable force, since you felt more threatened because it's essentially 'your castle' and you're defending your turf.

However, the "stand your ground" takes it a step further, and removes the limitation on your residence. So that, for example, if you felt threatened in public, you can not only apply this rule as a defense, you can even actively pursue the threat until you feel it is extinguished, even if it means pursuing the supposed threat. Personally, I think it's absolutely absurd - the concept is very broad in interpretation - and whether someone (or something) is a threat is a very difficult thing to prove (or disprove) in court.