Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#2,101
#2,101
Gandalf said:
So interesting question - some of you (@hog88 especially) seem to think the kid acted in self defense but had no business being there armed. Now, I could be wrong on this (a wizard's prerogative from time to time) but Kyle's interest, besides being a medic, was also to protect the businesses and stores that the looters were vandalizing and burning. That would necessitate being armed.

If this is so, do you think that is a legitimate endeavor?

If not, is it ok to defend your neighbor's place or must it require an arm of the state to do so? if he were a fresh recruit in the national guard out there would your opinion be different? If he were a paid guard hired to protect the gas station?

I suspect the owners of those stores and businesses and sometimes homes may have been grateful for kids like Kyle with the mindset of protecting others. I just wonder since I remember being in the LA riots in 1992. When the mob is coming for you and yours but nobody is left who wants to help anyone else, where will you go? When strangers see people beaten and raped on subways and the street right in front of them but no one wants to get involved, there is no upside.

Where do we go when that is our society? Its ok for the strong (I consider myself so) but what of the weak (my wife, my family, the old)? Who defends them? is it only the state - have we so given up our own souls?
Click to expand...

My contention is that a 17yo had no business being there on either side of a riot. Nothing more in-depth than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, jaybird_1981 and Orangeslice13
#2,104
#2,104
volinbham said:
Nothing I've said matches the thing you don't subscribe to.

Seems you are incapable or unwilling to compare the two instances. I find that odd but I'm sure the response will be yet another non-answer so I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Was me saying the prosecutor was out of line not sufficient? What exactly are you asking me?
 
#2,107
#2,107
BowlBrother85 said:
LOL. A judge presiding over a homicide trial just instructed the jury to applaud a witness, just prior to that person's testimony. There have been mistrials declared for lesser things.
Click to expand...
Both sides are posturing for a mistrial. That might be the best resolution to prevent minimize more rioting.
 
#2,108
#2,108
Wireless1 said:
Both sides are posturing for a mistrial. That might be the best resolution to prevent minimize more rioting.
Click to expand...
I think they will riot regardless. The anarchists will use anything as an excuse, and riots might distract from the horrible job Biden is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#2,110
#2,110
hog88 said:
My contention is that a 17yo had no business being there on either side of a riot. Nothing more in-depth than that.
Click to expand...

Ok, interesting thought. Basically, wait till you hit the age of accountability before doing what you consider adult only things? Had he been 18 or 19, you would not have had an issue? aside: the possession by a minor charge wouldnt be a problem
 
#2,111
#2,111
Gandalf said:
Ok, interesting thought. Basically, wait till you hit the age of accountability before doing what you consider adult only things? Had he been 18 or 19, you would not have had an issue? aside: the possession by a minor charge wouldnt be a problem
Click to expand...

Less of an issue yes.
 
#2,113
#2,113
hog88 said:
That would be a terrible outcome because the prosecution would get a redo.
Click to expand...
Using a completely different set of charges. They know they lost this trial on merit. They hope the jury will convict on something because people died, but they have blown this trial for the charges they filed. Their own witnesses destroyed their case. As you read through these posts, it's all about the minutia not about the meat..... even about a gun charge.....
 
#2,114
#2,114
hndog609 said:
I have no idea why the defense would be going for a mistrial. Pretty much everything I've seen leans pretty hard to acquittal by justified self-defense.
Click to expand...
I agree, but given the environment of the jurors city, do they feel they have to find him guilty of something otherwise their city will burn? A mistrial will delay/minimize any reaction.
 
#2,115
#2,115
Wireless1 said:
I agree, but given the environment of the jurors city, do they feel they have to find him guilty of something otherwise their city will burn? A mistrial will delay/minimize any reaction.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading what you're describing correctly it would pretty much mean our legal system is being manipulated by domestic terrorism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, walkenvol, red butler and 3 others
#2,116
#2,116
clarksvol00 said:
Was me saying the prosecutor was out of line not sufficient? What exactly are you asking me?
Click to expand...

LOL. I've explained the question multiple ways. You asked me the same question and I answered it directly. I'm not playing the game anymore and will just consider you incapable or unwilling to answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IBlvNTmWrk
#2,121
#2,121
volinbham said:
LOL. I've explained the question multiple ways. You asked me the same question and I answered it directly. I'm not playing the game anymore and will just consider you incapable or unwilling to answer.
Click to expand...
I see... you want me to grade them on a scale? I think the prosecutor calling out his exercise of the 5th is worse, but nobody is arguing with me about that so I'm obviously not having to defend my position on it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top