Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would quite literally have to be EXTREMELY STUPID to go an riot in Kenosha (or anywhere) after this verdict. If you learned nothing else from this trial, you should have figured out one thing: Don't go to places where people are looting and rioting if you want to stay alive!

I mean, at it's most basic level, the lesson here is: STAY AWAY FROM RIOTING!

If a white dude has a gun, the lesson will be to shoot him before he shoots you. He has a license to kill you with impunity, so you'd better shoot first.

Well, then there are those who just shoot off their mouth with idiotic statements...

Do you realize everyone involved was white? Do you realize he was threatened in each case and has a LAWFUL right to defend himself with lethal force? Did you watch the trial? Oh, right, thought not.

DP. People with jobs and families don’t have time to sit and watch eight days of trial. You keep making this point about watching the trial, and it’s really telling.

By telling, do you mean that most people have no idea what the trial evidence is, and what exactly transpired that night? If so, then yes, it is very telling.

Spending dozens of hours obsessively watching trial proceedings in which one does not have a direct personal stake or a significant processional interest is indicative of an obsessive need to validate something in oneself.

Dozens of hours? Obsessively watching? I’m not the person who asked if you watched the trial, but making up facts to prove your point isn’t a very good strategy.

It was a 10-day trial. If people actually watched the whole trial as they claim, then yes, it has been dozens of hours of trial proceedings. That is not “making up facts.”

Who said they watched the whole trial?

I certainly hope that anyone claiming to have full knowledge of all of the trial testimony based on having watched it would, in fact, have watched all of the trial testimony. If instead they have only watched select snippets that someone said would support their view of the case, then they are no better off than people who are getting their understanding of the case from news reporting and commentary.

Uh, no. The entire point is the reporting has been horrendous, not based in fact and full of racial undertones that are nonexistent in this case, which became glaringly obvious when the actual evidence and witness testimony was presented. No one is claiming to have watched the whole trial or to have full knowledge, but a little time watching the witness testimony and video footage as well as spending a little time understanding what he was actually charged with and NOT charged with, tells a whole different story than what is reported. The jury saw the entire trial, and of course they will take all of the information into account when deciding, but the misinformation being spread by the media in the meantime is designed to shape narrative and not report, so if that is your only source of info, it is probably best not to comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.

m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.

If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.

Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.

I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.

m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.

If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.

Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.

I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

Why are none of the rioters held accountable for breaking curfew? Why is one side, rioting, looting and burning allowed be present, but others standing in front of businesses to help keep them from being looted and burned escalating the landscape. The police were aware they were there and okay with it at the time per the Wisconsin Examiner:

At 9:57 p.m., around the same time Rittenhouse was guarding the car shop, Kenosha Police Sergeant Adam Jurgens sent a message in the department’s internal messaging system about the presence of armed civilians in the city. Jurgens’ message tells officers they may need to give these civilians an order to “stand down,” but downplays the threat posed by the militias, whom he describes as “very friendly.”

“If problems arise and those groups enter into the mix please provide them verbal orders to stand down if we have the resources to handle the calls for service,” Jurgens wrote. “Very friendly but we need to handle our business in-house as much as possible.”

About 45 minutes later, law enforcement officers driving by the dealership in an armored vehicle offer Rittenhouse’s group water. On a live-streamed video of this exchange, one of the officers echoes Jurgens’ tone of friendship to the counter protesters carrying AR-15 style rifles.

“We appreciate you guys. We really do,” one of those officers can be heard saying to Rittenhouse and his group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.
m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.


If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.


Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.


I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

This. The most dangerous thing to come out of the last 5.5 years is the pervasive lawlessness. Both the lawlessness of the leftist rioters on the far extremes of the BLM movement, and the lawlessness of the Trump led-GOP in supporting white supremacist mob violence like January 6th, refusing to convict Trump on not 1 but 2 legitimate instances of impeachment which---prior to the advent of extreme polarization in the Gingrich congress of the 90s---would have resulted in bipartisan condemnation, to Trump's pardons of Roger Stone, Manafort, etc.
We need to get back to the moderate middle in this country or we are doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.
m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.


If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.


Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.


I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

This. The most dangerous thing to come out of the last 5.5 years is the pervasive lawlessness. Both the lawlessness of the leftist rioters on the far extremes of the BLM movement, and the lawlessness of the Trump led-GOP in supporting white supremacist mob violence like January 6th, refusing to convict Trump on not 1 but 2 legitimate instances of impeachment which---prior to the advent of extreme polarization in the Gingrich congress of the 90s---would have resulted in bipartisan condemnation, to Trump's pardons of Roger Stone, Manafort, etc.
We need to get back to the moderate middle in this country or we are doomed.

I guess the irony of your post escapes you, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.
m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.


If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.


Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.


I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

This. The most dangerous thing to come out of the last 5.5 years is the pervasive lawlessness. Both the lawlessness of the leftist rioters on the far extremes of the BLM movement, and the lawlessness of the Trump led-GOP in supporting white supremacist mob violence like January 6th, refusing to convict Trump on not 1 but 2 legitimate instances of impeachment which---prior to the advent of extreme polarization in the Gingrich congress of the 90s---would have resulted in bipartisan condemnation, to Trump's pardons of Roger Stone, Manafort, etc.
We need to get back to the moderate middle in this country or we are doomed.

Agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.

m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.

If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.

Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.

I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

Why are none of the rioters held accountable for breaking curfew? Why is one side, rioting, looting and burning allowed be present, but others standing in front of businesses to help keep them from being looted and burned escalating the landscape. The police were aware they were there and okay with it at the time per the Wisconsin Examiner:

At 9:57 p.m., around the same time Rittenhouse was guarding the car shop, Kenosha Police Sergeant Adam Jurgens sent a message in the department’s internal messaging system about the presence of armed civilians in the city. Jurgens’ message tells officers they may need to give these civilians an order to “stand down,” but downplays the threat posed by the militias, whom he describes as “very friendly.”

“If problems arise and those groups enter into the mix please provide them verbal orders to stand down if we have the resources to handle the calls for service,” Jurgens wrote. “Very friendly but we need to handle our business in-house as much as possible.”

About 45 minutes later, law enforcement officers driving by the dealership in an armored vehicle offer Rittenhouse’s group water. On a live-streamed video of this exchange, one of the officers echoes Jurgens’ tone of friendship to the counter protesters carrying AR-15 style rifles.

“We appreciate you guys. We really do,” one of those officers can be heard saying to Rittenhouse and his group.

The rioters don’t get a pass. They broke the law when they vandalized property and they not only broke the law when they violated the curfew, but they were the reason why there was a curfew in the first place. Law enforcement recognized that vigilante citizens had good intentions, but the Police Sergeant was 100% correct when he told officers that “we need to handle our business in-house as much as possible,” because it was entirely predictable that if the criminal element (the rioters) and untrained, but armed vigilantes engaged, the outcome could be tragic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.

m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.

If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.

Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.

I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

Why are none of the rioters held accountable for breaking curfew? Why is one side, rioting, looting and burning allowed be present, but others standing in front of businesses to help keep them from being looted and burned escalating the landscape. The police were aware they were there and okay with it at the time per the Wisconsin Examiner:

At 9:57 p.m., around the same time Rittenhouse was guarding the car shop, Kenosha Police Sergeant Adam Jurgens sent a message in the department’s internal messaging system about the presence of armed civilians in the city. Jurgens’ message tells officers they may need to give these civilians an order to “stand down,” but downplays the threat posed by the militias, whom he describes as “very friendly.”

“If problems arise and those groups enter into the mix please provide them verbal orders to stand down if we have the resources to handle the calls for service,” Jurgens wrote. “Very friendly but we need to handle our business in-house as much as possible.”

About 45 minutes later, law enforcement officers driving by the dealership in an armored vehicle offer Rittenhouse’s group water. On a live-streamed video of this exchange, one of the officers echoes Jurgens’ tone of friendship to the counter protesters carrying AR-15 style rifles.

“We appreciate you guys. We really do,” one of those officers can be heard saying to Rittenhouse and his group.

Where these guys on 1/6? The police were really taking a beating amd could have used their help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would quite literally have to be EXTREMELY STUPID to go an riot in Kenosha (or anywhere) after this verdict. If you learned nothing else from this trial, you should have figured out one thing: Don't go to places where people are looting and rioting if you want to stay alive!

I mean, at it's most basic level, the lesson here is: STAY AWAY FROM RIOTING!

If a white dude has a gun, the lesson will be to shoot him before he shoots you. He has a license to kill you with impunity, so you'd better shoot first.

Well, then there are those who just shoot off their mouth with idiotic statements...

Do you realize everyone involved was white? Do you realize he was threatened in each case and has a LAWFUL right to defend himself with lethal force? Did you watch the trial? Oh, right, thought not.

DP. People with jobs and families don’t have time to sit and watch eight days of trial. You keep making this point about watching the trial, and it’s really telling.

By telling, do you mean that most people have no idea what the trial evidence is, and what exactly transpired that night? If so, then yes, it is very telling.

Spending dozens of hours obsessively watching trial proceedings in which one does not have a direct personal stake or a significant processional interest is indicative of an obsessive need to validate something in oneself.

Dozens of hours? Obsessively watching? I’m not the person who asked if you watched the trial, but making up facts to prove your point isn’t a very good strategy.

It was a 10-day trial. If people actually watched the whole trial as they claim, then yes, it has been dozens of hours of trial proceedings. That is not “making up facts.”

Who said they watched the whole trial?

I certainly hope that anyone claiming to have full knowledge of all of the trial testimony based on having watched it would, in fact, have watched all of the trial testimony. If instead they have only watched select snippets that someone said would support their view of the case, then they are no better off than people who are getting their understanding of the case from news reporting and commentary.

Uh, no. The entire point is the reporting has been horrendous, not based in fact and full of racial undertones that are nonexistent in this case, which became glaringly obvious when the actual evidence and witness testimony was presented. No one is claiming to have watched the whole trial or to have full knowledge, but a little time watching the witness testimony and video footage as well as spending a little time understanding what he was actually charged with and NOT charged with, tells a whole different story than what is reported. The jury saw the entire trial, and of course they will take all of the information into account when deciding, but the misinformation being spread by the media in the meantime is designed to shape narrative and not report, so if that is your only source of info, it is probably best not to comment.

If you are only watching select snippets of testimony out of context, you’re not really much more informed than someone reading new reporting because you’re not getting the full picture either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They didn’t send anyone home. Just admit you want him convicted because He is a white guy and be done with it

DP. Presumably the fact that he's responsible for peoples' deaths has something to do with the desire for a conviction.

There would be way more people in prison if every time a gun went off and killed someone the person holding the gun was convicted of murder.
Thankfully, self defense doesn’t work that way.

PP's statement was that the reason the other poster wanted him convicted was because he was a white guy. The PP didn't apparently recognize that peoples' deaths might be a factor in the desire for conviction. Just race and gender. Self defense might be a reason he shouldn't be convicted, but that doesn't negate those deaths as a reason someone might want him convicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most dangerous thing to come out of the last 5.5 years is the pervasive lawlessness. Both the lawlessness of the leftist rioters on the far extremes of the BLM movement, and the lawlessness of the Trump led-GOP in supporting white supremacist mob violence like January 6th, refusing to convict Trump on not 1 but 2 legitimate instances of impeachment which---prior to the advent of extreme polarization in the Gingrich congress of the 90s---would have resulted in bipartisan condemnation, to Trump's pardons of Roger Stone, Manafort, etc.
We need to get back to the moderate middle in this country or we are doomed.

I'm with you. BLM v. Trump/Rittenhouse reminds me of the Communist v. Nazi street fights in 1920s-30s Germany.

[Anonymous]

A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most dangerous thing to come out of the last 5.5 years is the pervasive lawlessness. Both the lawlessness of the leftist rioters on the far extremes of the BLM movement, and the lawlessness of the Trump led-GOP in supporting white supremacist mob violence like January 6th, refusing to convict Trump on not 1 but 2 legitimate instances of impeachment which---prior to the advent of extreme polarization in the Gingrich congress of the 90s---would have resulted in bipartisan condemnation, to Trump's pardons of Roger Stone, Manafort, etc.
We need to get back to the moderate middle in this country or we are doomed.

I'm with you. BLM v. Trump/Rittenhouse reminds me of the Communist v. Nazi street fights in 1920s-30s Germany.

Ah there’s that wonderful “both-side” cop out. BLM is in no way the equivalent of republicans and their supporters. BLM fights for justice while republicans fight for recidivist authoritarianism and fascism.
Use your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
You all are really trying to whitewash this murderer.

If he is found innocent be ready to see more murders by open carry individuals when they feel "threatened", and not necessarily by another weapon. The precedent will give them a license to kill.
m

If you don’t understand how the law works, you should probably refrain from commenting.


If you don't understand how the world works you should probably stay inside your comfy bubble.


Give me a break. Decent, law-abiding people have nothing to fear from the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the three individuals shot that night were absolutely garbage human beings who were in Kenosha that night to trash public and private property. This was not some peaceful march to Selma.


I’m a decent, law abiding citizen. I’ve never put graffiti on someone else’s property or broken windows or set anything on fire or stolen anything or threatened anyone. If people are rioting and there’s a curfew, my teenagers and I will be at home. I was raised in a household with a hunting rifle and am related to multiple hunters, many military veterans, and a Wildlife Officer who supervises multiple rural counties and enforces hunting regulations. None of us would be okay with our teenagers taking on rioters with an AR-15.

You’re not even saying people like me have nothing to fear from KR, specifically; you said we have nothing to fear from “the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world.” That’s BS. We’re normalizing average, untrained citizens, *including minors, in some jurisdictions,* arming themselves to the teeth and taking to the streets when there’s already unrest and law enforcement doesn’t have control of the situation. That’s scary as hell. The curfew was intended to limit the number of people on the streets in order to give law enforcement an advantage and limit confrontations. KR’s presence escalated the landscape from looting and burning to gunfire. If all of his shooting was legally justified self defense, then he can be acquitted, but we cannot pretend that he didn’t exercise extremely poor judgment. We cannot justify anyone else following his example. We should not encourage would-be vigilantes. The next time, there could easily be unintended targets caught in crossfire.

This. The most dangerous thing to come out of the last 5.5 years is the pervasive lawlessness. Both the lawlessness of the leftist rioters on the far extremes of the BLM movement, and the lawlessness of the Trump led-GOP in supporting white supremacist mob violence like January 6th, refusing to convict Trump on not 1 but 2 legitimate instances of impeachment which---prior to the advent of extreme polarization in the Gingrich congress of the 90s---would have resulted in bipartisan condemnation, to Trump's pardons of Roger Stone, Manafort, etc.
We need to get back to the moderate middle in this country or we are doomed.

Yes both extremes are equally horrible. BLM was just as divisive as the far right law breakers and most do see that. Most people are middle and want these groups to be dissolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most dangerous thing to come out of the last 5.5 years is the pervasive lawlessness. Both the lawlessness of the leftist rioters on the far extremes of the BLM movement, and the lawlessness of the Trump led-GOP in supporting white supremacist mob violence like January 6th, refusing to convict Trump on not 1 but 2 legitimate instances of impeachment which---prior to the advent of extreme polarization in the Gingrich congress of the 90s---would have resulted in bipartisan condemnation, to Trump's pardons of Roger Stone, Manafort, etc.
We need to get back to the moderate middle in this country or we are doomed.

I'm with you. BLM v. Trump/Rittenhouse reminds me of the Communist v. Nazi street fights in 1920s-30s Germany.

Ah there’s that wonderful “both-side” cop out. BLM is in no way the equivalent of republicans and their supporters. BLM fights for justice while republicans fight for recidivist authoritarianism and fascism.
Use your head.

If they're "fighting" by smashing shit up, then they're doing it wrong -- regardless of the righteousness of their cause. It empowers the the extremes (left and right) to the detriment of the center. A House Divided cannot stand and all of that.