Post by: Mase on November 12, 2021, 09:43:41 AM
Post by: nddons on November 12, 2021, 10:49:01 AM
Some observations:
He shot complete dirtbags. That meme is accurate. Each shooting was justified self defense. No question in my mind. The prosecutor is an idiot. It’s telling that the elected district attorney did not take this case himself. I’m not sure I’ve seen a case where every move was covered by iPhone video, live streaming, and even FBI drones and aircraft. Those videos alone should have ensured this case was never filed. But of course “BLM” so of course politics dictated that charges had to be filed.
Post by: Rush on November 12, 2021, 11:15:43 AM
Post by: nddons on November 12, 2021, 11:26:38 AM
The question is just whether the jury has been intimidated enough by the leftist criminal thugs to convict him because “rioting”. You know, like the cowardly SCOTUS did with the election.BLM is threatening trouble if he’s acquitted, and the family of the black guy who was justifiably shot (which lead to the rioting) has threatened to dox the jury if he’s acquitted.
This has zero to do with race, as it was one white guy who shot three white guys. But they doesn’t stop the race hustlers from calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist.
The judge reported that last week the jurors were being filmed on their way into the courthouse.
This will get ugly when he (hopefully) is acquitted.
Post by: Rush on November 12, 2021, 11:51:24 AM
BLM is threatening trouble if he’s acquitted, and the family of the black guy who was justifiably shot (which lead to the rioting) has threatened to dox the jury if he’s acquitted.
This has zero to do with race, as it was one white guy who shot three white guys. But they doesn’t stop the race hustlers from calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist.
The judge reported that last week the jurors were being filmed on their way into the courthouse.
This will get ugly when he (hopefully) is acquitted.
It is a mistake to give in to terrorist threats. He should be acquitted, and then when the riots start, thousands of other good citizens should come out armed and defend the innocent bystanders and their property if the police can’t or won’t.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 12, 2021, 11:52:32 AM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 12, 2021, 03:45:27 PM
Grosskreutz has been all over the MSM trying to change the story he told on the stand.This is the guy who pointed the gun at Rittenhouse and was then shot. He should instead be thankful he is still alive. Clear case of justified use of lethal force against him.
Post by: nddons on November 12, 2021, 03:54:42 PM
This is the guy who pointed the gun at Rittenhouse and was then shot. He should instead be thankful he is still alive. Clear case of justified use of lethal force against him.They all are clear cut, but this is the most clear cut of all.
The prosecutor made a big deal out of the other two not having a gun. “He only had a skateboard.” Yea, wielded like a bat at his head, and no less deadly than a bat.
Post by: Rush on November 12, 2021, 08:26:40 PM
Quote
KENOSHA, WI—Leftists are sounding the alarm that Kyle Rittenhouse—a notorious slayer of white communist pedophiles—may escape punishment through a little-known legal loophole known as a "trial."
"This is very concerning," said Chip Cordray, progressive legal expert covering the case. "Using this obscure loophole, Rittenhouse's fate will be decided by an impartial jury of peers based on evidence, rather than the whims of noble communist revolutionaries on Twitter—such as Bette Midler and Joe Biden."
Experts confirm that if Rittenhouse is found "not guilty," liberals won't be getting their way, which could lead to massive temper-tantrums, such as arson and looting.
"We can't let this happen," said Cordray. "It's time to talk about closing the 'trial' loophole so that justice can be done according to the whims of the leftist mob, as our founding fathers intended."
Post by: nddons on November 12, 2021, 08:42:35 PM
https://babylonbee.com/news/liberals-accuse-rittenhouse-of-trying-to-avoid-punishment-through-legal-loophole-known-as-trial/Once again, the Bee is too close to reality.
Post by: Rush on November 15, 2021, 03:57:50 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/15/rittenhouse-thomas-binger-gun-safety-ar-15/
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 15, 2021, 04:12:57 PM
Look at this IDIOT prosecutor! Has his finger on the trigger in a courtroom!!!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/15/rittenhouse-thomas-binger-gun-safety-ar-15/
ugh....
shuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershudder
Post by: Rush on November 15, 2021, 04:33:00 PM
ugh....
shuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershuddershudder
Looks like he’s muzzle sweeping people with his finger on the trigger. “But it’s not loaded”
Man o man.
Post by: jb1842 on November 15, 2021, 04:43:36 PM
Post by: nddons on November 15, 2021, 08:40:19 PM
Why the fuck isn't that chamber zip tied so the BCG can't go home!?!?!?!Exactly. This prosecutor should be disbarred for the charge of being a fucking dumbass who endangered every person in the courtroom.
Post by: Rush on November 15, 2021, 08:43:12 PM
Exactly. This prosecutor should be disbarred for the charge of being a fucking dumbass who endangered every person in the courtroom.
I was thinking the same thing, I am considering writing a letter to his bar. Wonder how many other people have the same idea? Lol!
Post by: nddons on November 15, 2021, 11:46:12 PM
I was thinking the same thing, I am considering writing a letter to his bar. Wonder how many other people have the same idea? Lol!The thing is, THIS is the guy prosecuting Rittenhouse for reckless disregard for human life.
Post by: nddons on November 15, 2021, 11:47:53 PM
Post by: Anthony on November 16, 2021, 07:57:11 AM
Looks like he’s muzzle sweeping people with his finger on the trigger. “But it’s not loaded”
Man o man.
As you know Rush, because you've been trained, EVERY gun is loaded.
Post by: jb1842 on November 16, 2021, 08:39:47 AM
Exactly. This prosecutor should be disbarred for the charge of being a fucking dumbass who endangered every person in the courtroom.
The courtroom deputies and the police who have custody are at fault. Don't know how many guns I've seen in evidence in trials where I had to take it from them and render it inoperable before a trial.
Post by: nddons on November 16, 2021, 08:41:17 AM
As you know Rush, because you've been trained, EVERY gun is loaded.He’s such a weasel, I’m sure he got a chub when putting his finger on the trigger.
Post by: nddons on November 16, 2021, 08:49:44 AM
The courtroom deputies and the police who have custody are at fault. Don't know how many guns I've seen in evidence in trials where I had to take it from them and render it inoperable before a trial.When the prosecutor asked for the rifle, he asked the sheriff deputy to make sure it’s safe. The deputy put on rubber gloves, opened the chamber and examined it, and then according to the picture, closed the chamber and handed it to the prosecutor. Madness. There’s no reason why the chamber needed to be closed for the prosecutor’s demonstration.
Post by: jb1842 on November 16, 2021, 08:53:27 AM
When the prosecutor asked for the rifle, he asked the sheriff deputy to make sure it’s safe. The deputy put on rubber gloves, opened the chamber and examined it, and then according to the picture, closed the chamber and handed it to the prosecutor. Madness. There’s no reason why the chamber needed to be closed for the prosecutor’s demonstration.
Unacceptable. No gun is truly safe unless it can't be operated. No way that would happen at a federal trial. I have a shotgun in my back seat right now. Was pheasant hunting earlier. Safety is on, chamber is open, and all my shells are in the back of my truck. I could have it loaded and shooting in 5 seconds if I wanted to.
Post by: Number7 on November 16, 2021, 09:53:35 AM
Some days I wonder if liberals are so stupid that they can't really see how utterly ignorant and irrelevant they are.
Since time immemorial, legend has whispered of a hero prepared by the ancients to defend liberty and shoot commie pedophiles in the name of butt-kicking freedom. Our generation has been blessed to witness this hero in action. His name is Kyle Rittenhouse. Here are a few absolute truths about the based legend:
1) Tucker Carlson wears Kyle Rittenhouse pajamas: Rumors of a matching body pillow are unfounded.
2) His midichlorian count is off the chart- over 20,000: Not even Master Yoda has a midichlorian count that high.
3) Rittenhouse has never shed a tear, ever: Even while crying.
4) We stopped receiving transmissions from "Q" the moment he was taken into custody: Coincidence?
5) Standing downwind of Rittenhouse is guaranteed to cause testosterone poisoning: More “T” runs through his veins than is found in the entire Democratic party.
6) His AR-15 was forged by the ancient men of Westernesse with the magical ability to vanquish the dark armies of Communism: The Númenorian etchings are still legible.
7) Trump has tapped Rittenhouse as Defense Secretary in 2024: And Vice President.
8) According to legend, if a commie pedophile says "Rittenhouse" in the mirror 3 times, Kyle will pick them off from 500 yards away: One can only hope.
9) He was born on July 4th to a pair of majestic bald eagle parents: He did not shoot his way out of the womb as was once believed.
https://babylonbee.com/news/the-chosen-one-10-little-known-facts-about-modern-day-legend-kyle-rittenhouse
Post by: Number7 on November 16, 2021, 09:54:57 AM
KENOSHA, WI—During his closing argument yesterday in the Rittenhouse trial, lead prosecutor Thomas Binger proved just how deadly an AR-15 can be by spraying bullets into the jury.
"AR-15's are big and scary, and to prove it, look at this!" he exclaimed to the horrified jury as he produced a scary-looking black rifle. "Don't let my adorable fauxhawk hairstyle and metrosexual glasses fool you, I know how to handle these deadly weapons!"
He then sprayed several rounds into the seated jurists, hitting 7 of them.
"Oops! Oh no! That wasn't supposed to happen!" said the startled prosecutor as he began to soil his trousers. "But that just goes to show you how deadly and dangerous these things are! Kyle Rittenhouse had absolutely no business carrying one! They just go off and kill people at random!"
Binger then glanced at his partner prosecutor and gave a thumbs up, having "totally nailed" the closing argument.
https://babylonbee.com/news/prosecutor-proves-how-deadly-ar-15-is-by-accidentally-shooting-7-jurors
Post by: Number7 on November 16, 2021, 09:56:07 AM
KENOSHA, WI—Leftists are sounding the alarm that Kyle Rittenhouse—a notorious slayer of white communist pedophiles—may escape punishment through a little-known legal loophole known as a "trial."
"This is very concerning," said Chip Cordray, progressive legal expert covering the case. "Using this obscure loophole, Rittenhouse's fate will be decided by an impartial jury of peers based on evidence, rather than the whims of noble communist revolutionaries on Twitter—such as Bette Midler and Joe Biden."
Experts confirm that if Rittenhouse is found "not guilty," liberals won't be getting their way, which could lead to massive temper-tantrums, such as arson and looting.
"We can't let this happen," said Cordray. "It's time to talk about closing the 'trial' loophole so that justice can be done according to the whims of the leftist mob, as our founding fathers intended."
https://babylonbee.com/news/liberals-accuse-rittenhouse-of-trying-to-avoid-punishment-through-legal-loophole-known-as-trial
Post by: bflynn on November 16, 2021, 09:58:26 AM
I was thinking the same thing, I am considering writing a letter to his bar. Wonder how many other people have the same idea? Lol!
After Baldwin, EVERYONE should have the same idea.
Post by: Rush on November 16, 2021, 11:34:13 AM
Post by: jb1842 on November 16, 2021, 12:14:03 PM
Post by: nddons on November 16, 2021, 12:27:42 PM
Tin foil hat time. What if the prosecutor is trying to lose the case on purpose? The DA is political, and pushed this through just so he can look good if they win (Look at me! I got Rittenhouse convicted and he's going to rot in jail. Please elect me to a higher office). The prosecutor on the case knows it's bullshit, doesn't like the DA, and is trying to lose it out of spite.There’s been talk about messing it up enough to have a hung jury and get to try the case again with a better prosecutor.
Post by: Lucifer on November 16, 2021, 12:30:14 PM
Law schools in this country don't put out the best and brightest. And when they do, those types go on to private practice.
The bottom dwellers take corporate attorney jobs, DA jobs and government attorney jobs because they can't make it in private practice.
Post by: nddons on November 16, 2021, 12:33:18 PM
I think it's just a case of dumbass lawyers.Are you saying that when the prosecutor told the jury that if you bring a gun to a fistfight, you lose the right to argue self-defense, that he was incorrect?
Law schools in this country don't put out the best and brightest. And when they do, those types go on to private practice.
The bottom dwellers take corporate attorney jobs, DA jobs and government attorney jobs because they can't make it in private practice.
Yes, he said that. And his assistant said in the rebuttal that sometimes you have to take a beating, but you have no right to shoot someone.
Post by: Lucifer on November 16, 2021, 12:36:31 PM
Are you saying that when the prosecutor told the jury that if you bring a gun to a fistfight, you lose the right to argue self-defense, that he was incorrect?
Yes, he said that. And his assistant said in the rebuttal that sometimes you have to take a beating, but you have no right to shoot someone.
Law schools will be showing these tapes for years to come.
Post by: Number7 on November 16, 2021, 01:43:13 PM
Are you saying that when the prosecutor told the jury that if you bring a gun to a fistfight, you lose the right to argue self-defense, that he was incorrect?
Yes, he said that. And his assistant said in the rebuttal that sometimes you have to take a beating, but you have no right to shoot someone.
The pathetic fuckwads at politifact are so delusional that they ran with a totally erroneous 'fact check,' but don't feel it necessary to address their blind dishonesty.
They're kind of like the entire democrat party that way.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/rittenhouse-trial-politifact-gun-charge
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 16, 2021, 02:38:17 PM
Quote
The enduring mystery of the Kyle Rittenhouse criminal trial, which went to a jury Tuesday, has been the identity of "Jump Kick Man." As Rittenhouse ran away from a crowd of people, he testified that one of the pursuers hit him in the head with his skateboard. When Rittenhouse fell to the ground, Jump Kick Man flew through the air and stomped on his head. Rittenhouse fired two shots at Jump Kick Man, but missed.
Post by: Rush on November 16, 2021, 02:50:04 PM
Are you saying that when the prosecutor told the jury that if you bring a gun to a fistfight, you lose the right to argue self-defense, that he was incorrect?
Yes, he said that. And his assistant said in the rebuttal that sometimes you have to take a beating, but you have no right to shoot someone.
Anyone who says that has no idea what they’re talking about and thinks a “beating” is a few bruises and a bloody nose like Hollywood misrepresents. Ever seen a head bashed in by something solid like say a skateboard? Hell, I sat on a jury that convicted a woman of beating her boyfriend to death with a small stick. You can kill someone with your bare hands, or feet, as anyone that’s taken serious martial arts knows.
That assistant is either very ignorant or deliberately spouting bullshit.
Post by: jb1842 on November 16, 2021, 03:10:47 PM
Anyone who says that has no idea what they’re talking about and thinks a “beating” is a few bruises and a bloody nose like Hollywood misrepresents. Ever seen a head bashed in by something solid like say a skateboard? Hell, I sat on a jury that convicted a woman of beating her boyfriend to death with a small stick. You can kill someone with your bare hands, or feet, as anyone that’s taken serious martial arts knows.
That assistant is either very ignorant or deliberately spouting bullshit.
Both. Someone has to be at the bottom of their law school class.
Post by: Little Joe on November 16, 2021, 03:51:47 PM
That assistant is either very ignorant or deliberately spouting bullshit.Deliberate. If he were on the other side, he would be saying the opposite.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 16, 2021, 04:01:59 PM
Are you saying that when the prosecutor told the jury that if you bring a gun to a fistfight, you lose the right to argue self-defense, that he was incorrect?I wonder if he has the same advice for cops.
Yes, he said that. And his assistant said in the rebuttal that sometimes you have to take a beating, but you have no right to shoot someone.
Post by: nddons on November 16, 2021, 04:05:53 PM
Anyone who says that has no idea what they’re talking about and thinks a “beating” is a few bruises and a bloody nose like Hollywood misrepresents. Ever seen a head bashed in by something solid like say a skateboard? Hell, I sat on a jury that convicted a woman of beating her boyfriend to death with a small stick. You can kill someone with your bare hands, or feet, as anyone that’s taken serious martial arts knows.It’s the latter. Do you think he would tell a woman who has been raped that she lost the right of self-defense if she pulled a gun and killed her unarmed assailant instead of taking the beating - and rape? He can’t be that stupid.
That assistant is either very ignorant or deliberately spouting bullshit.
Post by: texasag93 on November 16, 2021, 04:33:51 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 16, 2021, 07:18:03 PM
Quote
Two jurors holding decision up, outright citing backlash, per US Marshal in KenoshaWe already know groups have threatened to dox the jurors and publish their names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.
Post by: Rush on November 16, 2021, 07:26:01 PM
It would appear we are now witnessing the destruction of the American justice system.We already know groups have threatened to dox the jurors and publish their names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.
This is criminal intimidation and I can’t believe we let people get away with it. Threatening jurors has got to be a crime, interfering with judicial process or something. We need the FBI to do their jobs and find these people and throw the book at them. That is NOT free speech. I’m talking about just threatening it, never mind actually doxing them. Threats like that is attempting to tamper with the jury. Get FISA warrants, go get the keyboard warriors making these threats! I guess the FBI is too busy investigating important stuff like fake stories about Trump peeing in a hotel bed.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 16, 2021, 07:46:56 PM
This is criminal intimidation and I can’t believe we let people get away with it. Threatening jurors has got to be a crime, interfering with judicial process or something. We need the FBI to do their jobs and find these people and throw the book at them. That is NOT free speech. I’m talking about just threatening it, never mind actually doxing them. Threats like that is attempting to tamper with the jury. Get FISA warrants, go get the keyboard warriors making these threats! I guess the FBI is too busy investigating important stuff like fake stories about Trump peeing in a hotel bed.
It is a Federal crime under the following statute (there appear to be state statutes also):
“18 U.S. Code § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503)
Post by: Little Joe on November 16, 2021, 07:50:23 PM
It is a Federal crime under the following statute (there appear to be state statutes also):But what good is a law if the system doesn't enforce it?
“18 U.S. Code § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 16, 2021, 08:06:17 PM
This is criminal intimidation and I can’t believe we let people get away with it. Threatening jurors has got to be a crime, interfering with judicial process or something. We need the FBI to do their jobs and find these people and throw the book at them. That is NOT free speech. I’m talking about just threatening it, never mind actually doxing them. Threats like that is attempting to tamper with the jury. Get FISA warrants, go get the keyboard warriors making these threats! I guess the FBI is too busy investigating important stuff like fake stories about Trump peeing in a hotel bed.FBI is busy chasing parents at school board meetings.
Post by: Rush on November 16, 2021, 08:12:54 PM
FBI is busy chasing parents at school board meetings.
Oh that’s right, that’s their current high priority national security risk.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 16, 2021, 08:13:31 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 16, 2021, 08:15:55 PM
Oh that’s right, that’s their current high priority national security risk.
You may not have heard, a whistleblower has come forward with internal FBI communications showing that they are targeting parents.
https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1460702250238726145
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 16, 2021, 09:47:59 PM
Jim, thanks for the research.
Yer welcome.
It took all of 20 seconds to think of the search term “threatening juror statute”. A few moments to read the statute. It took longest to compose the resulting post because I type slow on an iPad.
Post by: nddons on November 16, 2021, 11:00:04 PM
It would appear we are now witnessing the destruction of the American justice system.We already know groups have threatened to dox the jurors and publish their names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.The mob will give them no quarter. They aren't going to throw out the pictures and names of jurors if they find him guilty. They shouldn't be naive. YOU DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS.
If they allow a hung jury, then these two will have kicked the can down the road so another 12 of their fellow citizens will have to suffer the same fate in a retrial.
Do your duty to the law and find him not guilty on all counts.
Post by: Rush on November 17, 2021, 03:34:37 AM
Yer welcome.
It took all of 20 seconds to think of the search term “threatening juror statute”. A few moments to read the statute. It took longest to compose the resulting post because I type slow on an iPad.
I hate typing on the iPad yet I do all my forum postings on my iPad. I don’t know why. I have a laptop. I have a desktop.
Post by: nddons on November 17, 2021, 09:27:47 PM
Post by: nddons on November 17, 2021, 09:30:22 PM
Post by: Lucifer on November 18, 2021, 07:08:00 AM
Seems several loads of bricks were delivered nearby................ :o
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 18, 2021, 07:24:57 AM
I hate typing on the iPad yet I do all my forum postings on my iPad. I don’t know why. I have a laptop. I have a desktop.
typing on the iPad helps keep the posts brief, right?
Post by: Rush on November 18, 2021, 08:46:41 AM
typing on the iPad helps keep the posts brief, right?
Hahahaha! Good one.
Post by: nddons on November 18, 2021, 04:48:52 PM
Post by: Number7 on November 18, 2021, 04:52:08 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211118/1f812f2e60e06651ac17783c4f674a7a.jpg)
That's epic.....
and true.
Post by: nddons on November 18, 2021, 04:57:04 PM
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/anuMFPLssX6SI/giphy.gif)
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 18, 2021, 06:23:20 PM
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 07:18:56 AM
Simple. He used the 2A to defend himself against their mob. An acquittal will show other Americans we don't have to sit back and take the abuse of the leftist and their hate groups.
Progressives are all in to terrorism. Once again, they accuse law abiding Americans of being "domestic terrorist" when in fact it's them promoting terrorism.
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 11:15:48 AM
Post by: jb1842 on November 19, 2021, 11:21:49 AM
Post by: Mr Pou on November 19, 2021, 11:23:26 AM
It does make one wonder, had the DA not gone for first degree charges, would the verdict have been different?
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 11:26:40 AM
Good!
It does make one wonder, had the DA not gone for first degree charges, would the verdict have been different?
Nope. Self defense. The 2A still stands.
Post by: jb1842 on November 19, 2021, 11:30:03 AM
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 11:40:41 AM
He needs to go buy a new AR right away. Someone is going to try to kill him soon.
More likely the MSM will just continue to drag him through the mud.
Post by: jb1842 on November 19, 2021, 11:42:19 AM
More likely the MSM will just continue to drag him through the mud.
Hope they do. Then he can buy ARs every day for rest of his life.
Post by: Number7 on November 19, 2021, 11:42:23 AM
Poor, senile, joe got kicked in the nuts again, today.
Post by: jb1842 on November 19, 2021, 11:46:12 AM
Post by: Rush on November 19, 2021, 11:46:29 AM
NOT GUILTY
How pathetic is my life that now I get news from here.
Post by: texasag93 on November 19, 2021, 11:50:53 AM
How pathetic is my life that now I get news from here.
Less filtered and easier to understand.
You also know our biases.
Post by: jb1842 on November 19, 2021, 11:52:41 AM
How pathetic is my life that now I get news from here.
You just have good taste in what sites to visit on the internet.
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 01:35:02 PM
Post by: Number7 on November 19, 2021, 01:59:27 PM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 19, 2021, 02:12:55 PM
“If you don’t get a lump in your throat or tear up watching this, you know you’re a Democrat.”
Post by: Rush on November 19, 2021, 02:27:09 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FElRUGEUUAMeEKp.jpg)
Um, hey bitch, he killed WHITE PEOPLE.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 19, 2021, 02:51:12 PM
Post by: Mase on November 19, 2021, 03:18:45 PM
Post by: nddons on November 19, 2021, 03:40:09 PM
Stan, doesn't deer gun season start tomorrow? Going to be a lot people armed in the state. Let's see if anymore fuck around and find out happens.I’m actually at a friends cottage up in the Northwoods right now, though I’m not a deer hunter.
I’m going to order one of these tonight at the supper club to have with a fish fry.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211119/d50911e2ac77d01f08b28442f3130b89.jpg)
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 04:10:04 PM
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 04:26:36 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 19, 2021, 04:29:27 PM
Quote
Ha, let the boy be black and it would’ve been life…hell he would’ve had his life taken before the bullshit trial.. sad
https://twitter.com/BubbaWallace/status/1461768285444317188
This is for anyone that only watched the MSM coverage.....
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 05:00:50 PM
Post by: Mase on November 19, 2021, 05:05:10 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 19, 2021, 05:09:09 PM
Post by: Number7 on November 19, 2021, 05:38:17 PM
Post by: nddons on November 19, 2021, 06:24:28 PM
I’m actually at a friends cottage up in the Northwoods right now, though I’m not a deer hunter.Screwed up. Had a Reverse Rittenhouse instead.
I’m going to order one of these tonight at the supper club to have with a fish fry.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211119/d50911e2ac77d01f08b28442f3130b89.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211120/02a04e69a04396543c142a6f6deb4ddd.jpg)
Post by: Lucifer on November 19, 2021, 06:47:27 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 19, 2021, 07:45:28 PM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 19, 2021, 08:01:05 PM
(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/nadler-rittenhouse.jpg)
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 19, 2021, 08:10:23 PM
But looking at his history, I think those of us interested in freedom need to have a nuanced view of him personally.
Certainly he appears to be on the road to be a statist LEO, no friend of liberty and likely one of those LEOs who looks for every excuse to legally use violence.
There is fairly good evidence that he was involved in a fight where he repeatedly struck a female. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/ . Not certain but the match of the still from the video and a known photo of him is striking.
Then there is the photo of him all dressed up as a police cadet.
I have to be concerned that he would happily “follow orders” to enforce victimless crime laws and even disarm peaceful citizens. He is young and perhaps will develop more freedom oriented views - we’ll see.
Post by: nddons on November 19, 2021, 08:26:13 PM
I am happy to see justice served here with Rittenhouse’s acquittal.Statist LEO? Your post is pretty troubling Peter. Your entire post are facts not in evidence. He was a Fire Department cadet, and I believe a Police cadet. So the fuck what? Will you call Police Explorers statists too?
But looking at his history, I think those of us interested in freedom need to have a nuanced view of him personally.
Certainly he appears to be on the road to be a statist LEO, no friend of liberty and likely one of those LEOs who looks for every excuse to legally use violence.
There is fairly good evidence that he was involved in a fight where he repeatedly struck a female. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/ . Not certain but the match of the still from the video and a known photo of him is striking.
Then there is the photo of him all dressed up as a police cadet.
I have to be concerned that he would happily “follow orders” to enforce victimless crime laws and even disarm peaceful citizens. He is young and perhaps will develop more freedom oriented views - we’ll see.
What were you doing when you were 17 or 18 years old? We need many, many more Kyles, and many fewer hood rats in this world.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 19, 2021, 08:26:54 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 19, 2021, 08:34:28 PM
Statist LEO? Your post is pretty troubling Peter. Your entire post are facts not in evidence. He was a Fire Department cadet, and I believe a Police cadet. So the fuck what? Will you call Police Explorers statists too?There are fairly good facts in evidence that he was repeatedly striking a female during an altercation. Check out out the still from the video and the known photograph of him. I would say about an 80% chance or more it is him.
What were you doing when you were 17 or 18 years old? We need many, many more Kyles, and many fewer hood rats in this world.
Now would you agree that if true it suggests he is an individual prone to violence?
And it is also true that LEOs are prone to intimate partner violence.
I agree we don’t know much about his politics at the moment. But I think it is reasonable to be suspicious that he tends to the statist side of things. I could be proven wrong by other facts.
If he was beating the girl, I would strongly disagree we need more like him. I imagine you would agree on that.
Since you asked - when I was 17 and 18 I was working hard to put myself through school and get good enough grades to pursue my career as a scientist. My goals were to discover things to make the world a better place.
Post by: nddons on November 19, 2021, 08:41:55 PM
Statement from the DCCC Chairman. Notice a big problem with it?Jacob Blake was armed with a knife. Dipshit congresswoman.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 19, 2021, 08:49:10 PM
Eventually the two girls get physical. Rittenhouse then appears to actually throws punches at the girl in black sweatpants while another of his friends attempts to restrain the girl in red tights.
So what is striking here is that rather than trying to restrain the girl in black sweatpants, it appears Rittenhouse is punching her from behind.
As a minor at the time, it is entirely possible that even if this incident were investigated and Rittenhouse charged, that that record is sealed.
Post by: Number7 on November 19, 2021, 08:54:23 PM
I am happy to see justice served here with Rittenhouse’s acquittal.
But looking at his history, I think those of us interested in freedom need to have a nuanced view of him personally.
Certainly he appears to be on the road to be a statist LEO, no friend of liberty and likely one of those LEOs who looks for every excuse to legally use violence.
There is fairly good evidence that he was involved in a fight where he repeatedly struck a female. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/ . Not certain but the match of the still from the video and a known photo of him is striking.
Then there is the photo of him all dressed up as a police cadet.
I have to be concerned that he would happily “follow orders” to enforce victimless crime laws and even disarm peaceful citizens. He is young and perhaps will develop more freedom oriented views - we’ll see.
If you were any more full of shot your breath would stink.
What a load of horse manure and quoting snopes is like quoting fauci and just as pathetic.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 20, 2021, 06:16:03 AM
Jacob Blake was armed with a knife. Dipshit congresswoman.The other thing is, Blake is still alive.
Post by: nddons on November 20, 2021, 06:18:59 AM
Looking much more carefully at the video and stepping it, it appears that Rittenhouse is with a group that includes a female in red tights. There is some sort of altercation between the girl in red tights and another girl in black sweatpants.With all the state-sponsored zeal to send this kid to prison for life, you don’t think this alleged incident would have come out in the trial? If he wasn’t charged, he would have been if prosecutors thought that was him. If he was charged, I’m certain the sleeze bag prosecutor would have mentioned it, sealed or not.
Eventually the two girls get physical. Rittenhouse then appears to actually throws punches at the girl in black sweatpants while another of his friends attempts to restrain the girl in red tights.
So what is striking here is that rather than trying to restrain the girl in black sweatpants, it appears Rittenhouse is punching her from behind.
As a minor at the time, it is entirely possible that even if this incident were investigated and Rittenhouse charged, that that record is sealed.
Post by: nddons on November 20, 2021, 06:24:35 AM
Post by: Rush on November 20, 2021, 06:58:57 AM
I am happy to see justice served here with Rittenhouse’s acquittal.
But looking at his history, I think those of us interested in freedom need to have a nuanced view of him personally.
Certainly he appears to be on the road to be a statist LEO, no friend of liberty and likely one of those LEOs who looks for every excuse to legally use violence.
There is fairly good evidence that he was involved in a fight where he repeatedly struck a female. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/ . Not certain but the match of the still from the video and a known photo of him is striking.
Then there is the photo of him all dressed up as a police cadet.
I have to be concerned that he would happily “follow orders” to enforce victimless crime laws and even disarm peaceful citizens. He is young and perhaps will develop more freedom oriented views - we’ll see.
Just because he is interested in law enforcement doesn’t mean he’s a statist or would be one of those police officers who is a domestic abuser. We cannot conclude all of that from this incident. He’s an idiot kid, male, at the height of testosterone poisoning, and raised in a generation where females just beg to be punched for all their narcissistic, self involved, anti-male whining. In the heat of the moment his self control and “never hit a girl” training, if he got any, failed. We cannot see what exactly happened. That girl may have had a handful of the other girl’s hair and was ripping it out by the roots. Or trying to poke out her eyes. Deadly force, if you can call those punches deadly, is justified in defense of another person at immediate risk of serious physical injury (presumably in that state, as it is in most). To my knowledge there is no law exempting females from having physical force used against them in self defense or defense of another. True, the other girl may have been the first to physically attack which may negate her right to be defended. We just don’t know.
But, we also don’t know you’re not right. It’s possible he has a pattern of behavior that led him to confrontations and an inclination to use force. This does nothing to change the fact that he acted in self defense in the riot, but it shows that just being there might not have been a wise decision. We think his motive was altruistic- to defend businesses- but we don’t really know. You might be on to something.
I’m not going to say he is some hero. Neither am I going to agree with the left that he’s a white supremacist looking for trouble. I don’t know him, I don’t know anything about him. I agree with the jury’s verdict in that one incident but we can’t draw any conclusions about him in general from that incident or the incident with the girl. There simply isn’t enough information, however, it’s certainly fair to put your hypothesis on the table. Although I’ll just keep it for consideration until more information comes out, not use it to jump to a broad conclusion about his entire state of mind and set of beliefs.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 20, 2021, 07:32:17 AM
Even if he is a white supremacist, he is still allowed to defend himself.
Post by: Number7 on November 20, 2021, 07:43:08 AM
Statement from the DCCC Chairman. Notice a big problem with it?
I agree with your assessment.
That entire press release is STUPID.
Typical stupid liberal bullshit.
They release this stuff knowing stupid people will fall for it and are unashamed of their bullshit.
People who fall for this are stupid and shouldn't go out in public.
Post by: Number7 on November 20, 2021, 07:44:20 AM
Looking much more carefully at the video and stepping it, it appears that Rittenhouse is with a group that includes a female in red tights. There is some sort of altercation between the girl in red tights and another girl in black sweatpants.
Eventually the two girls get physical. Rittenhouse then appears to actually throws punches at the girl in black sweatpants while another of his friends attempts to restrain the girl in red tights.
So what is striking here is that rather than trying to restrain the girl in black sweatpants, it appears Rittenhouse is punching her from behind.
As a minor at the time, it is entirely possible that even if this incident were investigated and Rittenhouse charged, that that record is sealed.
Petey is butt hurt because we didn't fall for his idiotic bullshit.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 07:47:28 AM
With all the state-sponsored zeal to send this kid to prison for life, you don’t think this alleged incident would have come out in the trial? If he wasn’t charged, he would have been if prosecutors thought that was him. If he was charged, I’m certain the sleeze bag prosecutor would have mentioned it, sealed or not.Have you actually looked at the video and the photograph?
Pretty convincing it was him.
Post by: Lucifer on November 20, 2021, 07:57:26 AM
This sums up the Rittenhouse prosecution. The Democrat Communist, who have a long history of supporting and operating hate groups such as the KKK, BLM and ANTIFA know that their tactics are useless against a population who can fight back legally. This is why they were so rabid in trying to get this kid put away for life, to show everyone else "If you try to prevent us from using terrorism we will through you in the gulag as well".
Communist love show trials, history has shown this time and time again. They (DC's) were hoping to make this a show trial. They became very perturbed they didn't have one of their hand picked leftist judges appointed to overlook the absolute stupidity put on by the prosecution. They were also incensed that they weren't allowed to bully the judge and jury into taking orders from them.
This trial is a huge setback for the DC's and their terrorist network.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 20, 2021, 08:25:25 AM
Looking much more carefully at the video and stepping it, it appears that Rittenhouse is with a group that includes a female in red tights. There is some sort of altercation between the girl in red tights and another girl in black sweatpants.
Eventually the two girls get physical. Rittenhouse then appears to actually throws punches at the girl in black sweatpants while another of his friends attempts to restrain the girl in red tights.
So what is striking here is that rather than trying to restrain the girl in black sweatpants, it appears Rittenhouse is punching her from behind.
As a minor at the time, it is entirely possible that even if this incident were investigated and Rittenhouse charged, that that record is sealed.
What the heck does this incident have to do with the Rittenhouse trial?
I think I've lost the bubble...
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 08:27:39 AM
What the heck does this incident have to do with the Rittenhouse trial?
I think I've lost the bubble...
It is only peripherally related. Many on social media are lionizing Rittenhouse as some great hero. I have suggested that those of us interested in liberty have a more nuanced view of him.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
Comes from a single parent family, mother. Dropped out of high school. Mother declared bankruptcy in 2018.
Seems like a troubled background.
https://conandaily.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-biography-13-things-about-illinois-man-who-shot-gaige-grosskreutz-joseph-rosenbaum-anthony-huber/
Post by: Number7 on November 20, 2021, 08:32:26 AM
More about Rittenhouse pertinent to having a more nuanced view of him.
Comes from a single parent family, mother. Dropped out of high school. Mother declared bankruptcy in 2018.
Seems like a troubled background.
https://conandaily.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-biography-13-things-about-illinois-man-who-shot-gaige-grosskreutz-joseph-rosenbaum-anthony-huber/
I think you are making up shit to justify your bigotry.
Everyone has a past, even you.
Projecting your insecurity and outright devotion to bullshit doesn't pass the smell test.
What's next, petey?
Are you going to be outraged that he went to Sunday School when he was young?
Will you describe his tendency to occasionally flatulate as 'troubling?'
The stupidity of your fraudulent arguments is mind boggling.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 08:34:01 AM
It’s possible he has a pattern of behavior that led him to confrontations and an inclination to use force. This does nothing to change the fact that he acted in self defense in the riot, but it shows that just being there might not have been a wise decision. We think his motive was altruistic- to defend businesses- but we don’t really know. You might be on to something.
I’m not going to say he is some hero. Neither am I going to agree with the left that he’s a white supremacist looking for trouble.
Pretty much agree with your whole post. While I was inclined to think of him more heroically to begin with as a defender of our 2nd amendment rights, this punching a girl repeatedly from behind and some of his other background (see prior post) has caused me to adopt a more nuanced view.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 20, 2021, 08:35:22 AM
It is only peripherally related. Many on social media are lionizing Rittenhouse as some great hero. I have suggested that those of us interested in liberty have a more nuanced view of him.
ah, so he isn't a saint, probably.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 08:38:29 AM
ah, so he isn't a saint, probably.Right. Riots tend to attract some unsavory characters on both sides. Oftentimes not the sort of person you'd want to invite to Thanksgiving dinner.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 20, 2021, 08:58:09 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 20, 2021, 08:59:06 AM
Post by: Number7 on November 20, 2021, 08:59:50 AM
How do we know the other girl was not his sister and he was defending her?
I'm sure petey thinks the facts are racist...
His arguments are pure projection.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 20, 2021, 09:00:13 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 20, 2021, 09:01:32 AM
I'm sure petey thinks the facts are racist...Was thinking Peter may not know know Kyle has a sister.
His arguments are pure projection.
BTW, I came from a pretty screwed up family and turned out okay, as have my sons.
Post by: Rush on November 20, 2021, 09:11:19 AM
Post by: Rush on November 20, 2021, 09:15:14 AM
"Terrorism doesn't work if the people aren't terrorized."
This sums up the Rittenhouse prosecution. The Democrat Communist, who have a long history of supporting and operating hate groups such as the KKK, BLM and ANTIFA know that their tactics are useless against a population who can fight back legally. This is why they were so rabid in trying to get this kid put away for life, to show everyone else "If you try to prevent us from using terrorism we will through you in the gulag as well".
Communist love show trials, history has shown this time and time again. They (DC's) were hoping to make this a show trial. They became very perturbed they didn't have one of their hand picked leftist judges appointed to overlook the absolute stupidity put on by the prosecution. They were also incensed that they weren't allowed to bully the judge and jury into taking orders from them.
This trial is a huge setback for the DC's and their terrorist network.
Because it was a fair trial that looked at the facts. Leftists can’t win with fairness, facts and reality, and that enrages them.
Post by: Number7 on November 20, 2021, 09:19:00 AM
Because it was a fair trial that looked at the facts. Leftists can’t win with fairness, facts and reality, and that enrages them.
Liberals like pete are enraged because they have become accustomed to getting their way no matter how unlawful, unfair, inhuman, or idiotic their demands.
When the world fails to give them everything they want, they lose their fucking minds, and the stupid lies start, like pete's.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 09:19:07 AM
His actions going forward will define him. Personally, I'm not sure I would have given Tucker, or any conservative talker interview.
I will be very curious to see how he ends up processing all this. Will his experience with the enormous power of the state and its potential for abuse cause him to be more freedom oriented? Or will it put him further in the direction of using and increasing state power?
Quote
How do we know the other girl was not his sister and he was defending her?Perhaps it was. Also as noted by Rush we don't know a lot of the details. Nonetheless, repeatedly striking a girl from behind when the other girl to the original dispute is being held at a distance strikes me as a bit excessive. Like Rush, I am inclined to think of it as a teenage physical dispute that got out of hand.
Quote
BTW, I came from a pretty screwed up family and turned out okay, as have my sons.
For some it has that effect and makes them better people. Which I think speaks to their character quite positively. I don't think Kyle Rittenhouse is responsible for his troubled background -- he was a minor. As an adult he will now have a number of challenges to overcome.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 09:22:09 AM
Because it was a fair trial that looked at the facts. Leftists can’t win with fairness, facts and reality, and that enrages them.
I tend to think that what really enrages them here is a fear that people are able to defend themselves against the mob that they favor. That is likely a pretty terrifying thought. Here you think you have it all nicely sowed up with the state doing all the actual violence on your behalf which you ignore and deny even exists. Then along come individuals who can counter that.
Post by: Rush on November 20, 2021, 09:27:37 AM
I tend to think that what really enrages them here is a fear that people are able to defend themselves against the mob that they favor. That is likely a pretty terrifying thought. Here you think you have it all nicely sowed up with the state doing all the actual violence on your behalf which you ignore and deny even exists. Then along come individuals who can counter that.
I agree with you except don’t understand your statement about the state doing all the actual violence on your behalf. The leftist rioters do plenty of violence themselves, or did I misunderstand what you meant?
Post by: Little Joe on November 20, 2021, 11:14:56 AM
It is only peripherally related. Many on social media are lionizing Rittenhouse as some great hero. I have suggested that those of us interested in liberty have a more nuanced view of him.Whose liberty are you interested in? I'm more interested in people defending their town than for those wanting to burn it down.
Post by: elwood blues on November 20, 2021, 11:55:11 AM
"Terrorism doesn't work if the people aren't terrorized."
This sums up the Rittenhouse prosecution. The Democrat Communist, who have a long history of supporting and operating hate groups such as the KKK, BLM and ANTIFA know that their tactics are useless against a population who can fight back legally. This is why they were so rabid in trying to get this kid put away for life, to show everyone else "If you try to prevent us from using terrorism we will through you in the gulag as well".
Communist love show trials, history has shown this time and time again. They (DC's) were hoping to make this a show trial. They became very perturbed they didn't have one of their hand picked leftist judges appointed to overlook the absolute stupidity put on by the prosecution. They were also incensed that they weren't allowed to bully the judge and jury into taking orders from them.
This trial is a huge setback for the DC's and their terrorist network.
That's Tucker Carlson's take as well, and the reason the left is going insane.
Post by: Rush on November 20, 2021, 12:29:24 PM
Post by: nddons on November 20, 2021, 03:52:18 PM
More about Rittenhouse pertinent to having a more nuanced view of him.2. In 2017, he participated in the Grayslake-Lindenhurst-Hainesville Public Safety Cadet program run by local police departments training aspiring police officers aged 14 to 21 in the basics of law enforcement.
Comes from a single parent family, mother. Dropped out of high school. Mother declared bankruptcy in 2018.
Seems like a troubled background.
https://conandaily.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-biography-13-things-about-illinois-man-who-shot-gaige-grosskreutz-joseph-rosenbaum-anthony-huber/
I agree. He sounds like a Hitler Youth. Better kill him before he reproduced little Kyles.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 03:57:15 PM
I agree. He sounds like a Hitler Youth. Better kill him before he reproduced little Kyles.Don’t know if I would go that far. But he does seem to tend toward statist LEO.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211120/66ba8cbbc3fe4f494334ae201e837855.jpg)
Post by: jb1842 on November 20, 2021, 03:58:25 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 03:59:01 PM
Whose liberty are you interested in? I'm more interested in people defending their town than for those wanting to burn it down.True that liberty does have different meanings. I mean like in “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. In order word freedom that respects people natural rights. Clearly requires respecting other people’s property and not burning it down.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 04:05:27 PM
I agree with you except don’t understand your statement about the state doing all the actual violence on your behalf. The leftist rioters do plenty of violence themselves, or did I misunderstand what you meant?While the rioters are the most egregious example, I think the majority of the violence is actually done by their policies enforced by the government.
The government uses violence and threats of violence to achieve it’s ends. That is what distinguishes it largely from private organizations - it is legally allowed to do that.
The left just doesn’t see that whenever they are violating someone’s natural rights with a political policy they are using violence to achieve their ends.
And pertaining to this case, Kyle Rittenhouse looks like he is anxious to become one of their enforcers.
And once you sign up to enforce all laws, then you are signed up to enforce even those which violate people’s natural rights. Including those proposed by either the left or the right. Neither major party has a rights based approach.
The other thing that pertains here is, as some of my more anarchistic friends like to note, without their army of paid enforcers, i.e. LEOs, politicians would just be a bunch of somewhat crazy people sitting around in a room arguing with each other.
Post by: Number7 on November 20, 2021, 05:06:13 PM
Don’t know if I would go that far. But he does seem to tend toward statist LEO.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211120/66ba8cbbc3fe4f494334ae201e837855.jpg)
Horseshit.
Your position doesn’t deserve a credible response because it is so blindly stupid.
Post by: Rush on November 20, 2021, 07:05:29 PM
While the rioters are the most egregious example, I think the majority of the violence is actually done by their policies enforced by the government.
The government uses violence and threats of violence to achieve it’s ends. That is what distinguishes it largely from private organizations - it is legally allowed to do that.
The left just doesn’t see that whenever they are violating someone’s natural rights with a political policy they are using violence to achieve their ends.
Agree completely. I see what you meant.
Quote
And pertaining to this case, Kyle Rittenhouse looks like he is anxious to become one of their enforcers.
And once you sign up to enforce all laws, then you are signed up to enforce even those which violate people’s natural rights. Including those proposed by either the left or the right. Neither major party has a rights based approach.
The other thing that pertains here is, as some of my more anarchistic friends like to note, without their army of paid enforcers, i.e. LEOs, politicians would just be a bunch of somewhat crazy people sitting around in a room arguing with each other.
But this sounds like you disapprove of anyone being a policeman. Aren’t their good ones? I know they are caught enforcing bad laws, like drug laws. But does that mean they’re all statists? Or can they just want to protect their community despite having to also enforce bad laws?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 08:03:44 PM
But this sounds like you disapprove of anyone being a policeman. Aren’t their good ones? I know they are caught enforcing bad laws, like drug laws. But does that mean they’re all statists? Or can they just want to protect their community despite having to also enforce bad laws?
I think the problem with being an LEO today is that there are just too many laws that violate other people’s natural rights. The book “3 felonies a day” goes into this problem at some length. And if you sign up, then your career and promotion start to depend on enforcing these bad laws.
I’m sure a fair number start out wanting to help and protect people’s rights, but with corrupt systems, there just isn’t much they can do.
It used to be they were called “peace officers”. Now they are called “law enforcement” officers. There is a difference.
I don’t buy the Nuremberg “just doing my job” excuse any more. If an LEO enforces an immoral law, I hold him or her personally morally responsible. Basically I don’t think good people should go into this line of work anymore until our legal system is substantially reformed or replaced.
ETA: I suppose one could try and evaluate what fraction of one’s duties are enforcing immoral laws versus moral laws and other forms of public service. My sense is that a lot of modern law enforcement is dealing with the consequences of the war on drug users.
Post by: nddons on November 20, 2021, 09:09:44 PM
Don’t know if I would go that far. But he does seem to tend toward statist LEO.Can you show me on the doll where the bad police officer touched you?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211120/66ba8cbbc3fe4f494334ae201e837855.jpg)
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 09:33:49 PM
And how many of them have actually been involved in the production of child pornography, where such a question would actually be appropriate.
Read the book “3 Felonies A Day” if you want to start getting a sense of how there are now so many laws that basically any professional is arguably committing several felonies each day. It is mostly a matter of if the prosecutors want to try and get someone.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 09:52:26 PM
How much time in jail did he spend for just defending himself? How much money has needed to be spent on his defense? How much torment has he endured over the last year due to this groundless prosecution?
I will be very curious if he still wants to have anything to do with LEOs after all this.
Post by: nddons on November 20, 2021, 10:14:41 PM
Not a funny joke actually. How many people have LEOs killed in botched raids in the last year? How many SWAT raids have they executed based on mistaken assumptions? It truly is a very serious problem.It wasn’t meant to be a joke. You having problems with LEOs has nothing to do with the immaturity of saying Rittenhouse is a statist. Not all LEOs are bad, just like not all MDs are good.
And how many of them have actually been involved in the production of child pornography, where such a question would actually be appropriate.
Read the book “3 Felonies A Day” if you want to start getting a sense of how there are now so many laws that basically any professional is arguably committing several felonies each day. It is mostly a matter of if the prosecutors want to try and get someone.
I bristle when people that I think are sane are using the same tactics as the leftist politicians and MSM to paint Rittenhouse in a broad, vile, and inaccurate brush. You’re doing the same thing, and it’s not becoming of a learned man.
I have sympathy for your plight. I have no sympathy for making insinuations that an 18 year old kid is a statist because he may have wanted to be a police officer some day.
By the way, his lawyer said he hopes to become a nurse some day. Not sure if nurses are statists in your world or not.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 10:47:07 PM
It wasn’t meant to be a joke. You having problems with LEOs has nothing to do with the immaturity of saying Rittenhouse is a statist. Not all LEOs are bad, just like not all MDs are good.Sorry, I can see that you are “bristling” and I think that is not based on an accurate perception of my statements. Now a certain degree of mis-understanding is almost inevitable in this type of forum, which of course why it is best to not engage in name calling. I can see though how such a mis-understanding could easily occur and am sorry if that has contributed to a feeling of bristling.
I bristle when people that I think are sane are using the same tactics as the leftist politicians and MSM to paint Rittenhouse in a broad, vile, and inaccurate brush. You’re doing the same thing, and it’s not becoming of a learned man.
I have sympathy for your plight. I have no sympathy for making insinuations that an 18 year old kid is a statist because he may have wanted to be a police officer some day.
By the way, his lawyer said he hopes to become a nurse some day. Not sure if nurses are statists in your world or not.
If you will examine my statements about Rittenhouse I don’t think they paint him in a “broad, vile, and inaccurate brush”. What statements specifically do you think do so?
I don’t believe my statements have said he is vile. I don’t think any of them have been inaccurate. But if you can cite the statements you think are that way, please do so, perhaps I am mistaken.
I do agree that many of the statements we see about this case in the MSM are overly broad or actually just off base in a very distorted way.
What I have said is that I don’t regard him as a big hero because he appears to have been punching a girl repeatedly from behind and he appears to tend in the statist direction.
Often a statist is defined as someone who believes that state power is good or in the expansion of state power. Certainly that is how I mean it.
In my experience most LEOs are fairly statist in that sense. They think they are doing the right thing by using state power and often want to see it expanded. Seems fairly natural to me. The state pays their salary and that is what they are doing all day. Most people would have that view when dependent on the state in this manner.
So does Rittenhouse show a propensity toward statism? Well clearly he was very interested in becoming an LEO at some point in his past. Not just a casual interest, but attending an academy and proudly dressing up in an LEO uniform. This is a much greater level of interest than normally shown by people that age. Though as I have noted in my prior statements, I don’t think we know his political views with any great certainty.
Remember please what I said about him generally. I think we need to have a more nuanced view of him rather than lionizing him.
If he wants to be a nurse, more power to him. I do not regard nurses generally as being particularly statist. And frankly I will revise my view of him if that is his intent.
I gather from other news that he is planning on moving due to death threats. Nursing is a good profession in that way since it is very much needed everywhere.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 10:56:43 PM
Not all LEOs are bad, just like not all MDs are good.
This is actually another point to look at. While not all LEOs are bad in some personal sense, there are many who will argue that the job today entails being bad by design.
While I certainly think there is a need for law enforcement in a general sense, since people need to be able to organize to defend themselves from people seeking to violate their natural rights, modern law enforcement entails taking an oath to enforce all laws.
Since many of these laws violate the natural rights of individuals, what is the moral status of a person taking such an oath?
Either they don’t mean it and only intend to enforce the laws which are moral and don’t violate the rights of their fellow citizens. Or they do mean it and are willing to violate the natural rights of their fellow citizens.
Now of course any system of law will have some bad laws. But at what level of bad laws does it become immoral to take an oath to enforce them all?
I don’t claim to know the answer in any precise sense, but I will say that it appears that we have gone over to far too many bad laws. And way to large a government trying to enforce them.
By contrast, the job of MD is to help people with their illnesses as they want to. There is nothing in the defined role that says MDs should violate the autonomy of their patients. Indeed their oath takes the exact opposite form of only working for the benefit of the patients. It also does not involve using violence to force that role on others. So the comparison is perhaps not so strong.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 11:27:51 PM
I hope that doesn’t happen to him and am fairly confident that if such cases are brought, there will be an outpouring of support for his defense. Nonetheless, more torment for him from our legal system.
I also wonder however if he could not make a career as a politician out west. A lot of support for him in the freer states.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 11:29:55 PM
There is an Army helicopter field named Rittenhouse nearby where I have done some landings during my training. I don’t think there is any relation.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 20, 2021, 11:37:39 PM
In my experience most LEOs are fairly statist in that sense. They think they are doing the right thing by using state power and often want to see it expanded. Seems fairly natural to me. The state pays their salary and that is what they are doing all day. Most people would have that view when dependent on the state in this manner.
I did a quick search to see whether "most" LEOs might be considered "statist". The 2016 presidential election choices gave, IMHO, some slight insight into statist preferences. Likewise LEO's opinions on Second Amendment rights. While your own experience with legal open carry may seem to belie the poll results, this is what I found.
In a poll taken shortly before the 2016 presidential election of "3,652 working officers" [1] Donald Trump was chosen by 84%, Hillary Clinton by 8%, Gary Johnson by 5% and 3% for others:
(https://protectionimages.bobitstudios.com/upload/police/content/article/_migrated/M-Chart-1.jpg)
In another poll of "843 officers" [2] the questions below yielded the following results:
1. Do you support the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms)?
Result: 100% Yes. 0% No.
2. Do you think there needs to be more gun control legislation?
Result: 86% No. 8% Yes. 5% Neutral. (See article for comments from some polled officers for clarification.)
3. Do you think any of these gun control laws are unconstitutional?
(https://images.storychief.com/account_4553/ScreenShot2019-12-14at1_07_14PM_a69beb4aa4fbecb650f0622d24a8139e_1600.png)
4. What type of agency do you work for (retired officers, list your last agency)
(https://images.storychief.com/account_4553/ScreenShot2019-12-14at1_09_15PM_348b5e2b1f60d4339f6c46b931c29d7e_1600.png)
5. Do you work in a rural or urban agency?
(https://images.storychief.com/account_4553/ScreenShot2019-12-14at1_12_38PM_11128de08d32154f581a732af99c874c_1600.png)
6. What type of state do you work in?
(https://images.storychief.com/account_4553/ScreenShot2019-12-14at1_12_46PM_70ccbd66b9e8345e11e212ffbdf57a0f_1600.png)
[1] https://www.policemag.com/342098/the-2016-police-presidential-poll (https://www.policemag.com/342098/the-2016-police-presidential-poll)
[2] https://2acops.com/2019/12/14/what-cops-think-about-the-2nd-amendment/ (https://2acops.com/2019/12/14/what-cops-think-about-the-2nd-amendment/)
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 20, 2021, 11:58:53 PM
I did a quick search to see whether "most" LEOs might be considered "statist". The 2016 presidential election choices gave, IMHO, some slight insight into statist preferences. Likewise LEO's opinions on Second Amendment rights. While your own experience with legal open carry may seem to belie the poll results, this is what I found.
In a poll taken shortly before the 2016 presidential election of "3,652 working officers" [1] Donald Trump was chosen by 84%, Hillary Clinton by 8%, Gary Johnson by 5% and 3% for others:
(https://protectionimages.bobitstudios.com/upload/police/content/article/_migrated/M-Chart-1.jpg)
In another poll of "843 officers" [2] the questions below yielded the following results:
1. Do you support the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms)?
Interesting way to try and tease that apart Jim. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don’t know that I can agree regarding interpretation of the 2016 poll. Mostly because I think both major political parties are roughly equally statist overall, just in different ways. (I know, I know, a very inflammatory view to many of the Trump supporters here.)
I agree that most police officers are fairly pro 2nd amendment in their stated views, which is good. However, most of them have a fair enthusiasm for enforcing our war on drug users and other other laws which violate people’s natural rights.
Here are two related stories.
The Phoenix PD told a news reporter after my demonstration that while they realized that open carry in the airport was legal, that in truth they would try and find a reason to arrest anyone doing so in a very visible manner. Not sure they would still do so after my case, as it would leave them open to suit for false arrest, but it does illustrate their attitude.
I knew an officer who worked for the city of Mesa. Met him at the meetings of the airport board there when I was attending. He recognized me and we had some reasonably friendly discussions. He told me one time that he preferred the law requiring a permit to carry a firearm because it made it easy for him to arrest people who believed were ne’er do wells.
I guess statist or statism is a somewhat broad term which can cover a lot of conditions. It may be better to be more specific when possible. And in the case of Rittenhouse, I agree we don’t know with great accuracy his political beliefs; though I do have a suspicion of statist tendencies based on his past behaviors. I could of course be persuaded otherwise by additional facts.
Post by: Lucifer on November 21, 2021, 07:46:21 AM
By contrast, the job of MD is to help people with their illnesses as they want to. There is nothing in the defined role that says MDs should violate the autonomy of their patients. Indeed their oath takes the exact opposite form of only working for the benefit of the patients. It also does not involve using violence to force that role on others. So the comparison is perhaps not so strong.
My concern with MD's has happened within the scamdemic when so many have abandoned the Hippocratic Oath and used medicine as a weapon and coercion tool.
We were told for years how healthcare was a universal right, only now we are being told that healthcare is only available for those who are compliant. And these doctors are using medical licensing laws and DEA regulations to enforce their demands.
Thankfully we still have doctors that care and rise above this garbage, but it's alarming at the percentage that are ideologically driven.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 21, 2021, 08:22:08 AM
And these doctors are using medical licensing laws and DEA regulations to enforce their demands.
Thankfully we still have doctors that care and rise above this garbage, but it's alarming at the percentage that are ideologically driven.
Agree with all those concerns. Medicine began to be increasingly part of the state with the development of licensing laws. Most of these were well intentioned at the time given the number of frank quacks and snake oil that were around at the time.
But as time has gone on this has increasingly corrupted the profession. The introduction of the FDA and Medicare dramatically accelerated these trends.
I think presently these regulations do more harm than good and especially now during the pandemic.
Post by: bflynn on November 21, 2021, 08:27:54 AM
But as time has gone on this has increasingly corrupted the profession. The introduction of the FDA and Medicare dramatically accelerated these trends.
Don't forget malpractice insurance. What a doctor must do, vs what they should do, is dictated by their requirement to adhere to the formulary. They don't dare treat someone in a way that isn't approved from on high, lest something go wrong.
In some cases, that makes sense. In others, it's idiotic.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 21, 2021, 09:07:07 AM
Post by: Number7 on November 21, 2021, 09:12:39 AM
Whenever a lefty starts babbling about coming together, they are really demanding they the rest of us cave in to their statist agenda.
Post by: Rush on November 21, 2021, 09:52:34 AM
Often a statist is defined as someone who believes that state power is good or in the expansion of state power. Certainly that is how I mean it.
I believe state power is necessary, neither good nor evil, but like any power prone to abuse and corruption. It is necessary to the extent that individuals’ rights must be protected from evildoers. Criminals who violate others’ rights must be held accountable by a sanctioned power and dealt with according to a formal protocol. We cannot have mob rule. The mob is notorious for getting it wrong. As evil as the state can be, the mob is worse. Until the state passes a certain point, then, the mob must rebel and dismantle it. Usually a time of chaos ensues that may or may not result in a more free society, or could result in simply replacing one state authority with another, possibly even worse, authority arising from the aforementioned mob.
But your second phrase, the expansion of state power is the problem and never should happen. There is no scenario where a centralized authority gaining increasing power over the lives of individuals is a good thing. Unfortunately the nature of power is that it always tries to expand. We have a cycle, from free to gradual loss of freedom to rebellion and overthrow, rinse repeat.
There is no stasis. All ideologies make the mistake of imagining a system that achieves stasis, usually utopian in nature. But the nature of reality is change. Organisms such as ourselves engage in struggles for dominance over time. There is no system that can prevent that. The challenge is to manage the cycles of change with as little damage and human suffering as possible, and endeavor to maintain as much prosperity and freedom for as many people as possible in the face of those hell bent on taking it away.
Anarchy (a complete absence of state power) cannot work. The mob will self sort into a hierarchy and you end up back at square one. Possibly by “state” you refer to the large state, not the local community. Do you believe the power to deal with criminals should rest with the smallest local districts? I could meet you at that point for further consideration. But I wonder if modern technology (agriculture, industrialization, WMDs) has made that impossible.
Post by: Rush on November 21, 2021, 10:12:03 AM
The leftists list and now they are out in force attempting to rewrite the facts to fit their marxist narrative.
Whenever a lefty starts babbling about coming together, they are really demanding they the rest of us cave in to their statist agenda.
It sounds like both you and Peter are anti-statist. I’m sure you’re both anti-leftist statist we have now (in the form of the Biden administration). Of course anyone not against them is brain dead.
Post by: Little Joe on November 21, 2021, 10:55:09 AM
I rather like The FreeThought Project’s take on the Rittenhouse case - (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211121/00c8477a5b7307c394340a87ceb8c7a3.jpg)He may not be a hero, but he is not a criminal either. However, the attempt to convict him and take away his freedom should be considered criminal. At a minimum, prosecutorial misconduct should be considered.
Post by: Number7 on November 21, 2021, 11:40:34 AM
For all the bullshit babbling by pete pretending to care, he really doesn't care about anyone's civil rights at all if they don't fit the leftist agenda.
For the record, I have NO INTEREST in coming together with the fucking communist democrats. They are the enemy of America and Americans.
Post by: Anthony on November 21, 2021, 11:52:59 AM
I notice none of the lefties are the least concerned about the prosecutors lying, withholding evidence, and using dirty tricks in an attempt to deny Rittenhouse a fair trial.
For all the bullshit babbling by pete pretending to care, he really doesn't care about anyone's civil rights at all if they don't fit the leftist agenda.
For the record, I have NO INTEREST in coming together with the fucking communist democrats. They are the enemy of America and Americans.
They, the Marxists, believe the ends justify the means because they see the big picture and are correct in all their thoughts and policies. It doesn't matter if it is illegal, immoral, corrupt, violent etc. They will do and say ANYTHING.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 21, 2021, 12:13:33 PM
Anarchy (a complete absence of state power) cannot work. The mob will self sort into a hierarchy and you end up back at square one. Possibly by “state” you refer to the large state, not the local community. Do you believe the power to deal with criminals should rest with the smallest local districts? I could meet you at that point for further consideration. But I wonder if modern technology (agriculture, industrialization, WMDs) has made that impossible.
Nice thoughtful post. I agree depending on how you define “state” and “anarchy” - and there are a variety of definitions in common use. The Greek roots for anarchy mean “having no ruler”, not necessarily mob rule.
I tend more toward Rothbard’s thinking on this these days. Fundamentally that while people definitely need organized defensive force administered by third parties according to a defined set of rules, it may not be wise to combine that with a geographically defined monopoly. Monopolies often don’t work very well. Much of his work focuses on how this could work. You might be interested if you have not read much of him.
Personally I don’t think we have enough experience at the lower end of the coercion spectrum of societal organization to be able to judge the minarchy - anarchy question accurately. If we can reduce the size of the government dramatically then we can probably see how low we can go in coercion to minimize overall rights violations by the government, whatever form it may take, and bad actors. Until then, I think the minarchy - anarchy debate is mostly theoretical about what is basically an empirical question about human nature.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 21, 2021, 12:20:20 PM
They, the Marxists, believe the ends justify the means because they see the big picture and are correct in all their thoughts and policies. It doesn't matter if it is illegal, immoral, corrupt, violent etc. They will do and say ANYTHING.There is a common feature amongst all who want to expand the power of the government that this touches on. They believe that they know the policies will work and that they know this better than others. It is certainly most extreme in Marxists but is present in both major political parties as well.
Since they are very certain they are correct, they think of coercing people as for their own good.
What this blatantly ignores of course is the limitations of human knowledge, the difficulties of predicting with any degree of accuracy the behavior of large numbers of people, and the fact that people don’t like having their autonomy constrained.
Most statists do believe they are doing it for good however. Even Hitler sincerely believed that he was making enormous personal sacrifices for the good of the German people, culture, and state which had been so sorely abused by the Versailles treaty. Very few such people think of themselves as acting from malicious motive. Nonetheless, when their assaults upon the liberty of others become serious enough, they may have to be forcibly stopped.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 21, 2021, 12:25:27 PM
He may not be a hero, but he is not a criminal either. However, the attempt to convict him and take away his freedom should be considered criminal. At a minimum, prosecutorial misconduct should be considered.Agreed, most certainly was not a criminal in his use of defensive force during the riot.
I think the prosecutorial misconduct case would depend on why the various pieces of evidence were not given to the defense. Does anyone know more details about that?
Simply bringing the information, rather than going to a grand jury, is going to leave the prosecutor open to a bit more risk.
Post by: bflynn on November 21, 2021, 12:36:23 PM
They, the Marxists, believe the ends justify the means because they see the big picture and are correct in all their thoughts and policies. It doesn't matter if it is illegal, immoral, corrupt, violent etc. They will do and say ANYTHING.
That wages of sin is death. Dems are living (dying with?) it.
Put me in the anti-statist crowd too, but I think at least we're patriotic about it.
Post by: nddons on November 21, 2021, 04:42:14 PM
This is actually another point to look at. While not all LEOs are bad in some personal sense, there are many who will argue that the job today entails being bad by design.I’m just getting back to this thread and will respond post by post.
While I certainly think there is a need for law enforcement in a general sense, since people need to be able to organize to defend themselves from people seeking to violate their natural rights, modern law enforcement entails taking an oath to enforce all laws.
Since many of these laws violate the natural rights of individuals, what is the moral status of a person taking such an oath?
Either they don’t mean it and only intend to enforce the laws which are moral and don’t violate the rights of their fellow citizens. Or they do mean it and are willing to violate the natural rights of their fellow citizens.
Now of course any system of law will have some bad laws. But at what level of bad laws does it become immoral to take an oath to enforce them all?
I don’t claim to know the answer in any precise sense, but I will say that it appears that we have gone over to far too many bad laws. And way to large a government trying to enforce them.
By contrast, the job of MD is to help people with their illnesses as they want to. There is nothing in the defined role that says MDs should violate the autonomy of their patients. Indeed their oath takes the exact opposite form of only working for the benefit of the patients. It also does not involve using violence to force that role on others. So the comparison is perhaps not so strong.
First, I will withdraw the word “vile” when it comes to you, but not when it comes to the left in general and politicians and the MSM specifically.
As for MDs, I don’t want to get too far off point, but it’s ironic I have to have an online consultation with some brave doctor for a preventative dose of ivermectin in the event I get covid because I understand my hospital system doesn’t permit it. I know someone who went into the hospital with vivid, they gave him steroids, the daughter begged for a treatment like ivermectin or the other drugs, and the doctor said it’s too late because they gave him steroids. Now he’s in a bad place on a vent. Are these doctors following their oath, or the directives of the CDC?
As for moral laws, I agree LEOs should not enforce immoral or unconstitutional laws. As for the 2A, our own Antonio Scalia sadly said in Heller that “some” regulation is permitted. I knew at the time that was dangerous to the 2A, and I was proven correct. I don’t see LEOs saying they can’t enforce the laws on the books right now. If Congress passes a law on confiscation, will they follow that? I’m hoping that’s a bridge too far for them.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 21, 2021, 05:34:55 PM
As for MDs … are these doctors following their oath, or the directives of the CDC?
Thanks. I agree that all this medical regulation should be abolished. It is now more dangerous than the ill effects it was intended to address.
Some doctors may truthfully not want to prescribe Ivermectin. My brief read of the literature suggests to me it may have some weaker beneficial effect in controlled trials. It is of course precisely in cases like this that the decision should be left to doctors and their patients. Presently there is a lot of pressure on doctors to tow the line from the regulatory and licensing laws. That is wrong.
Quote
As for moral laws, I agree LEOs should not enforce immoral or unconstitutional laws. As for the 2A, our own Antonio Scalia sadly said in Heller that “some” regulation is permitted. I knew at the time that was dangerous to the 2A, and I was proven correct. I don’t see LEOs saying they can’t enforce the laws on the books right now. If Congress passes a law on confiscation, will they follow that? I’m hoping that’s a bridge too far for them.
I share your hope but will not be holding my breathe. I agree it is a very serious problem that Heller allowed “some” regulation. That is not what the 2A says.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 21, 2021, 06:37:59 PM
He may not be a hero, but he is not a criminal either. However, the attempt to convict him and take away his freedom should be considered criminal. At a minimum, prosecutorial misconduct should be considered.
I hope his legal team is working up the plan to rake in a few hundred million dollars in defamation suits, starting with Brandon.
Post by: Lucifer on November 21, 2021, 06:43:17 PM
I hope his legal team is working up the plan to rake in a few hundred million dollars in defamation suits, starting with Brandon.
Post by: Anthony on November 21, 2021, 07:03:03 PM
That wages of sin is death. Dems are living (dying with?) it.
Put me in the anti-statist crowd too, but I think at least we're patriotic about it.
We're SUPPOSED to be revolutionaries at heart. That doesn't mean looting and violence for personal gain.
Post by: Anthony on November 21, 2021, 07:03:43 PM
There is a common feature amongst all who want to expand the power of the government that this touches on. They believe that they know the policies will work and that they know this better than others. It is certainly most extreme in Marxists but is present in both major political parties as well.
Since they are very certain they are correct, they think of coercing people as for their own good.
What this blatantly ignores of course is the limitations of human knowledge, the difficulties of predicting with any degree of accuracy the behavior of large numbers of people, and the fact that people don’t like having their autonomy constrained.
Most statists do believe they are doing it for good however. Even Hitler sincerely believed that he was making enormous personal sacrifices for the good of the German people, culture, and state which had been so sorely abused by the Versailles treaty. Very few such people think of themselves as acting from malicious motive. Nonetheless, when their assaults upon the liberty of others become serious enough, they may have to be forcibly stopped.
Well said sir.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 21, 2021, 07:50:33 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/11/21/rittenhouse-im-not-a-racist-person-i-support-the-blm-movement/
Post by: Little Joe on November 22, 2021, 04:53:19 AM
KR isn't old enough to drink beer. If he tries he probably will be arrested and convicted.
Post by: Rush on November 22, 2021, 05:10:59 AM
KR isn't old enough to drink beer. If he tries he probably will be arrested and convicted.
He can drink beer if he goes to Wisconsin and is supervised by a parent or spouse.
Post by: nddons on November 22, 2021, 07:57:10 AM
He can drink beer if he goes to Wisconsin and is supervised by a parent or spouse.That’s correct. The town of Antioch iL literally abuts the Wisconsin state line.
Post by: Lucifer on November 22, 2021, 07:58:41 AM
That’s correct. The town of Antioch iL literally abuts the Wisconsin state line.
But he crossed a state line!
Post by: Rush on November 22, 2021, 08:43:15 AM
But he crossed a state line!
With an illegal gun! ZOMG!
Post by: Lucifer on November 22, 2021, 02:15:27 PM
But he crossed a state line!
Post by: bflynn on November 22, 2021, 04:38:16 PM
With an illegal gun! ZOMG!
And his mother drove him!
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 22, 2021, 05:53:32 PM
Post by: nddons on November 23, 2021, 03:38:33 PM
https://youtu.be/kSypu3hOzNo
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2021, 07:00:26 AM
Post by: Little Joe on November 29, 2021, 06:34:34 AM
Post by: nddons on November 29, 2021, 06:40:27 AM
The answer to how she tells her son that Rittenhouse didn't get convicted is to say that he didn't do anything that was against the law. Even in today's world, you can't expect someone to be convicted because you don't like him, or you don't like what he did, or because he is white. The correct verdict is the one that convicts people that have actually broken laws.Whoh there Joe. That’s not a very “woke” response.
The only just thing would have been for the mob to break into jail and string Rittenhouse up by the nearest tree. We are being ruled by the mob, not our representative government any more. (Green font not available in Tapatalk.)
Post by: Anthony on November 29, 2021, 08:07:23 AM
Post by: bflynn on December 01, 2021, 01:44:39 AM
Whoh there Joe. That’s not a very “woke” response.
A country run by laws rather than the whims of a man was the new woke 250 years ago. Seems like it’s time for it to happen again.
Post by: Anthony on December 01, 2021, 07:06:19 AM
A country run by laws rather than the whims of a man was the new woke 250 years ago. Seems like it’s time for it to happen again.
Enlightenment and classical Liberal ideology. I concur.
Post by: Rush on December 01, 2021, 07:18:46 AM
Enlightenment and classical Liberal ideology. I concur.
Funny how “liberal” used to mean pro freedom and support for the common man against tyranny and now “liberal” means tyrants and authoritarians. Censorship, lockdowns, no private property rights (taxes, eviction moratoriums) no right to self defense, and above all, enrich the already rich corporate elite and political class at the expense of the common man. Total reversal, now enemies of freedom and the common man.