Rittenhouse not guilty
- Thread starter Hardcorp
- Start date
"In fact, Rittenhouse’s three assailants — Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old convicted paedophile who chased Rittenhouse through the streets during a Black Lives Matter riot on August 25th, 2020; Anthony Huber, a 26-year-old with convictions for strangulation and suffocation and domestic abuse who bludgeoned Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and appeared to try and grab his rifle; and Gaige Grosskreutz, a 28-year-old with a range of convictions for offences including striking his grandmother, felony burglary, and prowling who himself testified that Rittenhouse did not shoot him until he pointed an unlawfully-carried handgun at him — were all white."
Seems being a big loser is criteria for riot duty.
agree wholeheartedly about mobs and violence in general, it tends to force the populace towards the extremes on countermeasures and other stop gaps which can bleed over into what should be our constitutional rights as Americans.
I also think we need to be very deliberate with the truth and keep it separate from our opinions. Yes, police officers committed suicide some time after the Jan 6 riots. We cannot truthfully say they committed suicide because of the riots though, and should not look to pass legislation based on personal opinions.
I’m not endorsing any legislation…. It was a pretty messed up day to be a capitol city police officer, though.
I think the jury got it right with rittenhouse. I don’t see how he could be guilty of the charges they brought against them. Having said that, his parents are idiots for letting him do that. He very easily could have been killed by the mob.
I think everyone agrees it was a bad day for the Capitol police, placed in a no win situation with little support from leadership. I'm honestly surprised it wasn't much worse, although I think the amount of violence talked about was much less than what our media portrays. some areas had an absolute violent mob to contend with, some had 70 year old grannies strolling through like it was a self guided tour.
We do however have elected leaders looking to expand federal oversight and legislation because of this, opportunistically playing to the fears of some and using a willing media to broadcast a message that makes it sound like this is a nation wide crisis. when the President says white nationalism is our countries greatest threat, despite and absence of evidence, calls a 17 year kid a white nationalist, and media pundits says the Rittenhouse verdict is proof the legal system still benefits "white privilege", we have a very big problem because millions of people believe that. No evidence can change their mind, and so they will march to the polls during the next election with this at the forefront of their concerns.
I'm indifferent on whether KR should have been out that night. his dad lives there, so it's his community as much as anyone elses. if my little slice of Tennessee had violent mobs smashing buildings and looting, and I knew local law enforcement was unable to prevent that, I would absolutely have to question what my actions should be. Do I help my neighbors if they ask me to help protect their businesses and homes, or do I tell them no? Funny enough, when I lived in North Carolina last year our county Sherriff was very upfront about what local resources he had should protesters come and that no help would be coming to many businesses. He would however deputize anyone willing to assist, as long as they were very aware of the responsibilities that badge required and anyone looking to play vigilante could expect to be held accountable under the law. Suffice to say, he had many volunteers and thankfully no protests or mobs disturbed our small town. I think citizens have a responsibility to assist law enforcement when required, the degree to what that assistance is should be at the discretion of law enforcement professionals however.
Agree with almost everything you said….
no need for federal oversight here. The jury got it right. We are governed by laws that the jury interpreted and understood accurately. Anyone who has ever been in a jury SHOULD understand that.
I stand by my comments about the kid. Sorry, but a 17 year old shouldn’t be toting an AK-47 in public….at a violent riot.! I don’t care how much he’s been around guns. That’s stupid.
no need for federal oversight here. The jury got it right. We are governed by laws that the jury interpreted and understood accurately. Anyone who has ever been in a jury SHOULD understand that.
I stand by my comments about the kid. Sorry, but a 17 year old shouldn’t be toting an AK-47 in public….at a violent riot.! I don’t care how much he’s been around guns. That’s stupid.
I agree with his point. A responsible parent would not let their 17 yo kid go to a riot regardless of how righteous the cause. They would especially not let them take a gun
I don't think anyone is saying his dad is winning father of the year any time soon, but he also didn't break any laws by allowing him to go which is all that really matters.
Is our guiding principal not break any laws? Is that really all that matters? I’d suggest we should do better than just not break any laws. But I see you disagree.
We should do better than not break any laws like we should not burn and loot. Then there would be no need for anybody much less a 17 year old to feel like he must show up at a demonstration with a weapon.
well, are you of the opinion that all parents should maintain the exact same sets of values for raising their kids? who gets to determine this? I hate to ask the obvious here, but how is this even germane to the situation KR found himself in?
it would seem to me that not breaking laws is the one thing all parents can agree on for their kids. you’re welcome to disagree with any parents particular methods in how they raise their kids, some might disagree with yours and that’s okay too. but yes, I’d say “don’t break the law” is a common theme amongst all good parents. I’m not particularly interested in the details of your parenting style beyond that.
So you’re ok with parents teaching their kids to be racists, sexists and live on welfare.
Guess we differ.
more strawmen, emotional reee's, and trolling
let's try and keep this relevant to the intent of this thread shall we?
What is sad Is a seventeen yr old felt he had to do what grown men used to do, that is to protect their own neighborhood.
