Kyle Rittenhouse sobbing shows what's wrong with America

Some wonder if the prosecution is trying to throw the case because they have nothing.

 

Yep, those must be inferior nations:



https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world

It seems like in your RW world inferiority means never having to think about whether you will be gunned down by someone going postal when you leave the house in the morning.

 

I detest the type of statistics you are providing. They talk only about gun violence, but ignore other kinds of violence. Of course we have fewer gun deaths than China since the populace is not allowed to have guns.

 

You're allowed to shot anybody who attacks you with impunity. There's nothing precedential about that. It's the historical basis of self defense, and it's been the law of the land for a very long time.

 

It occurs to me that the "rest of the world" samples on that chart may be a tad bit selective.

Maybe it's just an innocent oversight that no South American of African countries made the chart, or maybe leftists don't consider them as part of the world?

 

His being there at all in an armed state refutes the self-defense argument.
You do not get to start beating someone up, shoot him dead when he fights back, and then claim self-defense

 

a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

Vigilantism. If Kyle gets a free pass, anything goes.

Hint: He won't.

 

But being a vigilante is still illegal. And if you kill somebody as part of being an illegal vigilante that is felony murder. isn't it?

If I am robbing somebody and kill them when they attempt to grab my gun I don't get to then claim self-defense, do I?

How did Rittenhouse know that the people he killed were not self-appointed vigilantes like himself, who thought they were chasing an armed rioter? Indeed, how could he tell the were not impromptu guards of the property legally appointed by the property owner, as he himself has claimed to be?

 

Are you equating carrying a gun to "beating someone up"?

Seriously?

When you see a person carrying a gun, it's the same as if you're getting beat up?

 

It's irrelevant what Kyle "knew" about the people who were attacking him. He's not required to know anything beyond the simple interpretation that they're a threat, and he has the right to defend himself.

 

So in your world simply being armed automatically removes ones Right to self defense? Sorry but I call BS on that. The whole point of being armed is about self defense. You are correct that starting to beat someone up nullifies any self defense claim. But simply showing up armed is not any sort of assault or "start to beat someone up".

 

Ooooh! It is not just the gun death rate that is lower



And it is also fewer police shootings. Mind you our rate of police shootings went up last year x we had 16 in a whole year, in all of Australia

https://theconversation.com/austral...n-the-past-year-should-we-be-concerned-169354

 

To a degree it does x under British law, which your laws are modelled on. Self defence must be appropriate to the level of perceived threat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

 

China has appeared to have disappeared from your chart.

Additionally, it does not show as much of a problem with guns as it does with people.

 

You're right of course. This is what's wrong with the left these days. They just cannot tolerate folks challenging their stupidity and their dictatorial glee. That isn't the way of the plantation, but these days, you just can't send the foreman out with a whip, you have to enlist thousands of angry "protestors" to inflict terror on the rest of the folks. And Rittenhouse dared to challenge them. Of course the left won't tolerate that. There are a few commentators already discussing (I'd call it inciting a riot but what else is MSNBC good at anymore) "Public reaction" and "anger" if Rittenhouse is acquitted, or the prosecution is rebuked by the judge and the case is dismissed. Want to know who is pushing this? NBC/Universal for some reason. Why? I can't tell you. Anger that their image factory of american cities burning was stopped? F them. And democrats who continue to support these acts of sedition and treason now need to start thinking about their own culpability. Recall the View interview of Adam Schiff who gleefully lied to the public for YEARS about the Russia hoax, and was called on it. You could see how unprepared he was to get a question like that. He thinks media is going to protect him, and his cohorts who so actively tried to push a coupe to remove the man who angered them so.

When you point out that it was ANTIFA, mostly white aggrieved criminals that fomented the violence in Kenosha, you are correct in also suggesting that challenging their terror isn't racial at that point. And perhaps that's the part that cuts the deepest for the left. They couldn't make folks believe in their fantasy racism there, and it's crumbling around them as a narrative more and more each day.

I suspect that when Joy Reid called Winsome Sears the "black face of white supremacy" (who still hasn't been removed or otherwise punished for that ridiculous bout of actual racism) the nation started to take notice of just who stupid, and how purposefully deceitful the modern democratic party and their plantation torment their pet media have become.

 

Do you not understand the concept of self defense and how that differs from randomly shooting and killing someone that does not pose a grave threat?

 

No they do not

 

One never has to worry about that here.

 

Ritten house actions were indeed appropriate to those threats

 

Not if it is in self defense which is the point you keep side stepping.

No you would not be able to claim it in the example you gave however Rittenhouse did not rob or attack or provoke any of the men he shot.

IF you rob someone and flee and then someone else unrelated or unconnected to the robbery attacks you then yes you have the right to defend yourself. He was not on private property and he commited no crime they were aware of. THEY DID

 

No he gets no pass. His shootings were self defense and unrelated to any vigilantism

 

First you should understand that a vigilante is someone who tries to assert their own "justice" in a situation. Someone protecting property is not a vigilante. Most self defense laws allows you to protect not just yourself, but others also.

Second Gaige and Huber and Jumpkick Man may very well have been trying to stop what they thought was an active shooter. And if so then they would have a claim to self defense also. Believe it or not both parties can have a right to a self defense claim. Which is more than likely why Gaige has not been charged with attempted murder for pointing his gun at Kyles head. But them trying to stop what they thought was an active shooter does not negate Kyle's Right to self defense as he does not know their intentions. He just knows that they are attacking him and trying to get his gun away from him, to possibly attack either himself or others.

When looking at self defense cases you must look at it from the person who is claiming self defense point of view. IE: Put yourself in their shoes. See things from their perspective. And when you do that you must put aside all of your assumptions and biases. All of them. And you must put aside all the things that we know, or think we know, about the case. Because that person doesn't know even half of what is discovered during an investigation with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

 

Yes.. "who were protesting'" they were rioting, burned down alot of private property; Another,,, "he world calling for police accountability and justice for Black lives. White allies, like the ones Rittenhouse shot, were among the protesters.'" Those guys were there for the mayhem , and it's been demonstrated time and again (think Chicago every weekend) that it's not about innocent lives. Wrong wrong wrong.. "pick up guns they shouldn’t have and thrust themselves into the middle of unrest they should avoid — confident in knowing that prison won’t be in their future." The guns were for protection .. the neccesity of which was borne out in this case; They weren't necessarity in the middle of unrest, they were cleaning up some of the mess, BUT they were protecting private property when the authorities would not, as had been demonstrated in a long line of riots all summer long; ANd I'd say only the most naive would thing they'd avoid prision for wrongful acts, in fact that mindset seems to come from the antifa, BLM, and Assorted Leftist rioters. And the characterisation as "right wing" is meant to bring up an idea in the minds of L:eftist (i.e. nazi) when they are Patriots. which the aforementioned groups hate, along with America. This is a Marxist Revolution and it takes people like this 17 year old kid to slow it down,, figures, his age group , historically, made up a good m=number of the soldiers and warriors in ages past.

 

Yes, but Australian citizens are a disarmed and cowed population who rolled over and traded freedom for safety, security, and obedience to authority.



So that's the fate you cowards chose.

 

Psychopaths do not understand the remorse normal people feel when they take a life, even when completely justified. Crocodile tears my eye!