|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 13, 2021 21:57:08 GMT
Mama Rittenhouse may have said too much ... Saying he would go back and do it again . Maybe... Kill more people? Not so good!! Neither Kyle Rittenhouse nor his family appears to have learned anything from the experience of being prosecuted for murder, according to CNN legal analyst Areva Martin. Martin expressed outrage Saturday over comments made by Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, during an interview Thursday night with Fox News' Sean Hannity. In response to a question from Hannity about whether her son "would go into a situation like that again," Wendy Rittenhouse said, "With Kyle, I know him, and he probably would do it again, because that's the type of person he is. He's always wanted to help people, even as a little boy, that's all he wanted to do, is help people."www.rawstory.com/kyle-rittenhouse-2655547192/ |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 11:40:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2021 22:30:37 GMT
Mama Rittenhouse may have said too much You mean Wendy? Replaced pic. I can't believe she's not even 50. I wonder what a hard life she's led. And so the misery continues from one generation to the next.
|
|
|
|
Post by sideways on Nov 14, 2021 1:28:58 GMT
Clearly, you’ve never seen someone start to cry. What he did…ain’t it. But keep trying to excuse a murderer. You trumpy cultists are the worst kind of disgusting. Just horrible people. You talk about cultists, lol. Have you prayed at Lord Fauci's alter today? "Please, Father Fauci! SAVE US from natural immunity!" You know there is talk of a 4th shot, I bet you'll be first in line. 😂🤣😂😂 So predictable. Thanks for proving my point. See you next Tuesday. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 14, 2021 1:38:23 GMT
Again... On page 5!!!
Unvaccinated people who had survived a previous COVID-19 infection were more than five times more likely to be reinfected with the virus compared to those who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, according to a new study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,796
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Nov 14, 2021 1:41:49 GMT
Again... On page 5!!! Unvaccinated people who had survived a previous COVID-19 infection were more than five times more likely to be reinfected with the virus compared to those who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, according to a new study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sometimes it just doesn't sink in cuz 🙈🙉 |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Nov 14, 2021 1:51:23 GMT
I was not aware of those pictures of him and what you say is correct. Didn't you ask why he was being called a racist? (and his charges are not about racism.). Should we also point out that his bail was paid by my pillow guy and others, and also paid for his representation. Its been an interesting case. No one asked why he is being called a racist. We asked what does that have to do with the trial. The answer is nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 14, 2021 4:08:13 GMT
I was answering the question "why 2 people there to render aid, needed to be armed." My answer referring to David Dorn, stands. I was not aware of the pillow guy being a white supremacist either. As stated upthread "That’s not the issue. The issue is what does that have to do with his trial? He’s not on trial for being a racist. You can’t convict him because he’s racist. That’s not illegal." Rittenhouse went to help keep the car dealership and the cars from being burned to the ground. He was putting out fires set by the criminals and that's what set off the actual aggressors. (Like David Dorn who didn't protect himself and now he's dead) Putting out fires is not provoking conflict. They threatened to kill him twice, he was bashed in the head with a skateboard twice, had a running kick to the face, (the guy was off the ground completely as his feet made contact to Kyle's face), they chased him, advanced on him and pointed a gun at him. It was self defense. The video shows that. The "victim"/aggressor/witness for the prosecution testified that he only got shot after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. That is self defense. No matter how disgusting the beliefs of the one defending themselves are, they are still entitled to defend their life, when all they're doing is putting out literal fires and handing out band-aids or whatever he was doing with his med kit. He may be a stupid teenager with ignorant beliefs, but it was still self defense. The thing is that he was not equipped to be there. He was not trained to protect someone's property in a volatile situation. He went in, in his arrogance and delusion, the big man with the gun, thinking he could "help." He has no training in avoiding conflict. He has no training in de-escalation. In addition having no training in these things, there's evidence that his mindset was one of racial hostility toward the people protesting. He was, unfortunately, encouraged in his delusion by the local police department. He was a vigilante who, due to arrogance and hubris, ended up helping no one and instead killed two people. David Dorn's situation, while tragic, has nothing to do with this. He went in unarmed because he had a history and background in actual law enforcement and a commitment to his community to try to de-escalate those situations and keep young men out of prison. Yes, he paid the biggest price and it's tragic. But it's not remotely related to a young, arrogant punk named Kyle Rittenhouse who took a big gun into a volatile situation and made it worse. I guess to me it comes down to whether two wrongs make a right. Looting is wrong. The appropriate response is for law enforcement to use proven tactics to de-escalate the situation and restore peace. Sending in and encouraging armed vigilantes to "protect" properties is also wrong. That's not how our justice system works. Kyle made very stupid choices. The first, worst choice, was to be there at all. He didn't know what he was doing. He made things worse. People died. The fact that our legal system may well let him skate on that is not evidence of his innocence. It's evidence of the brokenness of our system. I don't disagree with a lot of that. I answered the question as what would make anyone take a gun into this situation. I'm not comparing David Dorn to Kyle Rittenhouse, I'm saying those are the things that would enter the mind of someone that would take a gun. I'm not asking you to agree with it as the right thing to do, I'm simply saying that's what comes to mind. It's the kind of thing that would make most people think to just stay away, but clearly hundreds of people thought otherwise. You can disagree with that mindset (I do) but that's the answer to the question. You're right, none of that is evidence of his innocence, but the video of them attacking him and WHEN he shot and the testimony from the prosecution's witness that Kyle did not shoot him until he was advancing on Kyle and pointed a gun at Kyle IS evidence that it was self defense. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Nov 15, 2021 16:01:02 GMT
Count 6 has been dismissed - so now he has 5 charges.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Nov 15, 2021 18:03:06 GMT
I was surprised the prosecution used him as a witness. I wonder if they knew he was going to say that Rittenhouse shot him in self-defense? I seriously doubt they knew (but they should have). No matter how much you prepare with your witnesses they still suprise you. I’m sure there is no way the prosecution expected that |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 15, 2021 18:36:24 GMT
So my question is, how do we change our laws such that a person who unnecessarily puts themselves into a dangerous situation and then uses deadly force to "protect" themselves does not get away with murder? Can any of Kyle's supporters here see the potential for our current laws to continue be misused by people just looking to shoot someone?
|
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Nov 15, 2021 18:54:17 GMT
Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse was just another idiot that fell for the left-wing media (CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPO) narrative that the fiery, violent, deadly riots last year were nothing more than "peaceful protests." I mean...people here were saying (believing?) that, maybe he did too.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 15, 2021 18:56:43 GMT
Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse was just another idiot that fell for the left-wing media (CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPO) narrative that the fiery, violent, deadly riots last year were nothing more than "peaceful protests." I mean...people here were saying (believing?) that, maybe he did too. How does this make sense when he brought an AR-15 to "help" people? I think you need to check your own narrative. ETA: I think most people recognized that not all of the people at protests or in cities were there peacefully. However, where the conflict lies is the belief by certain groups that all of the people causing problems were involved with BLM. That simply wasn't true. |
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,815 
|
Post by Just T on Nov 15, 2021 18:59:04 GMT
Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse was just another idiot that fell for the left-wing media (CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPO) narrative that the fiery, violent, deadly riots last year were nothing more than "peaceful protests." I mean...people here were saying (believing?) that, maybe he did too. Oh Bullshit. Why did he show up with an AR 15, then? That makes no sense that you go to what you think is a peaceful protest with an AR 15, or any gun. There were some peaceful protests...my kids went to a couple in my city that the police knew about and were there for. But I don't for a second believe that Kyle thought he was going to a peaceful protest. |
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Nov 15, 2021 19:02:55 GMT
So my question is, how do we change our laws such that a person who unnecessarily puts themselves into a dangerous situation and then uses deadly force to "protect" themselves does not get away with murder? Can any of Kyle's supporters here see the potential for our current laws to continue be misused by people just looking to shoot someone? The old common law generally had a requirement that a person who used self-defense be without fault in bringing on the difficulty and avoid getting into a position where they would need to use deadly force (it also required people to retreat if they could do so unless they were in their own homes). You could restructure self-defense law to look more like that. The down side would be that you would have a lot of debate about whether or not people brought violence on themselves -- eg, I could imagine that if a black person went to protest at a white supremacist rally full of armed white activists known for violence, there would be folks who thought the protester would be putting themselves purposely in harm's way. I feel like what is so frustrating about this case, as I've articulated, is that I think most of us who are sane think that this kid and his mother made absolutely terrible decisions and need some intervention to communicate that to them and to keep them from making these kinds of decisions in the future, and that, instead, there is a segment of society that is valorizing both of them and no real mechanism for intervention other than a criminal justice system that isn't really designed to help people change (even if he were convicted). |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 15, 2021 19:14:03 GMT
Count 6 has been dismissed - so now he has 5 charges. I'm not surprised. It was just a matter of time when that charge would be dropped. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 15, 2021 19:20:17 GMT
Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse was just another idiot that fell for the left-wing media (CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPO) narrative that the fiery, violent, deadly riots last year were nothing more than "peaceful protests." I mean...people here were saying (believing?) that, maybe he did too. You are correct that he's an idiot. And he's all yours. |
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Nov 15, 2021 19:36:57 GMT
DH and I have had a lot of conversations about this, we don't see eye to eye on a lot of this. While Kyle may have gone there to "help" and there was video of him helping along with others, my question, which stumped DH was, How did Kyle get separated from the group of people trying to help and into a situation where he was then a possible "target" for others?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 11:40:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2021 19:37:09 GMT
So my question is, how do we change our laws such that a person who unnecessarily puts themselves into a dangerous situation and then uses deadly force to "protect" themselves does not get away with murder? Can any of Kyle's supporters here see the potential for our current laws to continue be misused by people just looking to shoot someone? Like I said above, when we're all armed - as the GOP wants us to be - we can all "feel threatened" when we see each other's guns, start shooting, and we can all claim self-defense. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 15, 2021 19:39:50 GMT
So my question is, how do we change our laws such that a person who unnecessarily puts themselves into a dangerous situation and then uses deadly force to "protect" themselves does not get away with murder? Can any of Kyle's supporters here see the potential for our current laws to continue be misused by people just looking to shoot someone? Like I said above, when we're all armed - as the GOP wants us to be - we can all "feel threatened" when we see each other's guns, start shooting, and we can all claim self-defense. Exactly. Everyone thinks that the other person with the gun is the threat--but what happens when someone else thinks that you are the threat? Nobody knows the intention of the other person so any time someone has a gun it changes the dynamic between all involved. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 15, 2021 20:09:31 GMT
Why did the judge dismiss the gun charge?
|
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Nov 15, 2021 20:24:34 GMT
Why did the judge dismiss the gun charge? Something about the gun falling under a hunting exemption because of the size. So as a minor, he was allowed to have it. ETA - The news says that is the charge that would have been the easiest to get a conviction on. Funny how that worked out for the defense. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 15, 2021 20:27:42 GMT
Why did the judge dismiss the gun charge? Something about the gun falling under a hunting exemption because of the size. So as a minor, he was allowed to have it. ETA - The news says that is the charge that would have been the easiest to get a conviction on. Funny how that worked out for the defense. AR-15's are used for hunting? |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Nov 15, 2021 20:31:50 GMT
Something about the gun falling under a hunting exemption because of the size. So as a minor, he was allowed to have it. ETA - The news says that is the charge that would have been the easiest to get a conviction on. Funny how that worked out for the defense. AR-15's are used for hunting? I’m thinking if one needs an AR-15 to hunt with then maybe they shouldn’t be hunting. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 15, 2021 20:33:03 GMT
Why did the judge dismiss the gun charge? Because of the Rule of Lenity. Yes, some of the judge’s rulings and admonitions might be biased, but setting aside the emotions and politics, I think in this instance he really had no choice but to dismiss the charge. They themselves (judge and four lawyers) cannot agree on the interpretation of the exemptions portion of Wisconsin’s open-carry law because of how badly-written it is, and on top of that there was no definitive answer from the LEO as to whether the rifle should be considered a long gun or a short gun. Is hunting the only exemption to a 16- or 17-year-old carrying a long gun? Or does the law, due to its vagueness, create ambiguity wherein other exemptions may be valid depending on whether it’s a short or long gun? If five legal minds cannot satisfactorily interpret the statute and its subsections, how can one expect a jury to understand it? And in instances of ambiguity such as this, the resolution has to be in favor of the defendant. It is what it is. |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 15, 2021 20:38:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 15, 2021 20:38:33 GMT
AR-15's are used for hunting? I’m thinking if one needs an AR-15 to hunt with then maybe they shouldn’t be hunting. I thought one time I read an article by a member of the military where they said that using an AR-15 for hunting would cause too much damage to the animal, but I could be wrong. They were saying that there was no real reason for individuals to have them. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 15, 2021 20:47:34 GMT
Hi. I do know about guns and hunting. If you need an AR-15 to hit your target, you’re incompetent. The article even quotes people saying you don’t need one - it just makes things “easy” and “fun.” What was Rittenhouse hunting that night? Libs? SMDH. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 15, 2021 20:48:28 GMT
I’m thinking if one needs an AR-15 to hunt with then maybe they shouldn’t be hunting. I thought one time I read an article by a member of the military where they said that using an AR-15 for hunting would cause too much damage to the animal, but I could be wrong. They were saying that there was no real reason for individuals to have them. This is accurate. My former Marine husband will tell you the same. It ruins the meat in many cases. If you’re hunting with an AR, you’re just killing for fun. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 15, 2021 21:43:36 GMT
Something about the gun falling under a hunting exemption because of the size. So as a minor, he was allowed to have it. ETA - The news says that is the charge that would have been the easiest to get a conviction on. Funny how that worked out for the defense. AR-15's are used for hunting? You bet.... For those who have difficulty hitting the target. Rather chop them up first. Did anyone see the open wound on the third guy, the one who survived ....? |
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Nov 15, 2021 22:01:20 GMT
I’m thinking if one needs an AR-15 to hunt with then maybe they shouldn’t be hunting. I thought one time I read an article by a member of the military where they said that using an AR-15 for hunting would cause too much damage to the animal, but I could be wrong. They were saying that there was no real reason for individuals to have them. Yep. They’re weapons of war - designed to cause maximum damage to the target - quickly. |
|
