Rittenhouse pleads 'Not Guilty'

[ditcherman]

As in going to defend Kenosha with Kyle? Were you out defending Indy last summer during the riots?

No.
What I get from your comment is a reminder that hindsight is 20/20. (Well, it used to be anyway )
So yes, in my original comment I’m doing some Monday morning quarterbacking. Hindsight and all.
But to arrive at the conclusions that RT does - with the same hindsight available - well, it just rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[KG1]

As in going to defend Kenosha with Kyle? Were you out defending Indy last summer during the riots?

I could'nt make it. I did'nt have an idealistic, naive 17 yr old to go with.

 

[ditcherman]

It also doesn't mean he wasn't on their side either. It doesn't mean he wasn't friendly with their beliefs either.

For me it boils down to he says and his actions show he was rendering first aid to people who were trying to damage and burn as much as they could, And I would be flat out pissed if I caught one of my children doing that or wanting to do that.

Edit: my point with the sign is that claiming "friendly" to hopefully keep them from turning on you, is no different to me than someone putting a BLM sign in their store window in hopes it will keep them from looting/destroying it.

Well, we’re going to agree (or not) to disagree on how we see this.
I appreciate your perspective and the conversation.
And hey! We have some really good news! KR was found not guilty and the right to self defense was put in front of the whole world and upheld!

 

[ditcherman]

Rittenhouse after he shot his attackers.

“I TOLD you I was friendly!”

I haven’t seen this in a meme yet but I bet I will. It will be at least a great line to use around here in some context.

 

[KG1]

Amazing how many posters can’t comprehend this case. It does not matter why he was there, how far away he lived from there, what he was doing, who he supported. Has no bearing whatsoever. This case is about the right to defend yourself. Some of the comments are as idiotic as saying if you went to the grocery store and was buying pineapple and some perp started beating the crap out of you, you could not defend yourself, but if you were buying tofu you could defend yourself.

You are correct. We can argue about if he should of been there or not but I think we can all agree that he had a right to defend himself. Those are two different issues.

 

[jsharmon7]

No.
What I get from your comment is a reminder that hindsight is 20/20. (Well, it used to be anyway )
So yes, in my original comment I’m doing some Monday morning quarterbacking. Hindsight and all.
But to arrive at the conclusions that RT does - with the same hindsight available - well, it just rubbed me the wrong way.

Maybe I just read his comment differently. I took it to mean he wouldn’t have let his 17 year old go to a place where there were riots, and for probably the same reason you and I didn’t go to downtown Indy last summer. Aside from the “with an AR15” part, I don’t disagree.

 

[cobber]

Any update on Lefty’s $10 million payday? Thinking this verdict should have knocked the stuffing out of that suit.

 

[KLB]

Amazing how many posters can’t comprehend this case. It does not matter why he was there, how far away he lived from there, what he was doing, who he supported. Has no bearing whatsoever. This case is about the right to defend yourself. Some of the comments are as idiotic as saying if you went to the grocery store and was buying pineapple and some perp started beating the crap out of you, you could not defend yourself, but if you were buying tofu you could defend yourself.

If the pineapple is to put on pizza, you would be correct!

 

[ditcherman]

If the pineapple is to put on pizza, you would be correct!

Also, there is NO defending yourself for buying tofu.

Also also, the multi quote is broken again it seems. At least for me. Maybe my accounts been downgraded.

 

[DadSmith]

I believe the mayor of indy would arrest anyone who went armed to protect businesses. I maybe wrong, but I don't see it being allow in a Democrat controlled city in Indiana.

 

[dusty88]

I believe the mayor of indy would arrest anyone who went armed to protect businesses. I maybe wrong, but I don't see it being allow in a Democrat controlled city in Indiana.

AIUI, you cannot use lethal force to protect your business in Indiana. You can stand there armed and hope they don't mess with you then try to defend yourself if they attack you personally. I believe the legislature was proposing that you should be able to use lethal force to protect your OWN business, but I don't know if that went anywhere.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He's not a government actor. He didn't deprive anyone of an enumerated federal right. He wasn't on federal property, etc., etc. etc.

Next you will tell me that parents protesting or expressing concern over the actions of school boards is not the DOJ's business either.

If they want him, they can take him, if they do or not, another matter.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the feds use it? Then. They’d be batshit crazy. And they are anyway. But that would just be a deterministic manifestation of what they are. People burning the city and destroying people’s property are not exercising their civil rights. Self defense IS a civil right.

Bat**** crazy, not drafting plans to indict parents at school board meetings for terrorism crazy?

Good this this DOJ will never do either.

 

[KittySlayer]

So the liberals on social media have circled back to the evil black gun… he didn’t need an AR15.

As I recall the facts:

• Based on his age he was allowed to carry a rifle and that is why that charge was dismissed.
• Because of his age he was not allowed to carry a handgun. <—— this?
• Kyle did not transport the rifle across state lines.
• If he legally acquired the AR15 is still in question.
• Police were told to stand down so no LEO was present to protect Kyle.
• There were rioters present intent on destruction and violence.
• Kyle needed some means to protect himself from felons rioting in the street.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Well, we’re going to agree (or not) to disagree on how we see this.
I appreciate your perspective and the conversation.
And hey! We have some really good news! KR was found not guilty and the right to self defense was put in front of the whole world and upheld!

I can agree to disagree, everyone's entitled to form their own opinion.

And yes him being found not guilty is the best outcome possible.

 

[Leadeye]

So the liberals on social media have circled back to the evil black gun… he didn’t need an AR15.

As I recall the facts:

• Based on his age he was allowed to carry a rifle and that is why that charge was dismissed.
• Because of his age he was not allowed to carry a handgun. <—— this?
• Kyle did not transport the rifle across state lines.
• If he legally acquired the AR15 is still in question.
• Police were told to stand down so no LEO was present to protect Kyle.
• There were rioters present intent on destruction and violence.
• Kyle needed some means to protect himself from felons rioting in the street.

It's interesting how times change, years ago you never heard a peep about ARs. All the socialist bile was directed at handguns of any type. Have to wonder what it will be in the future, phasers, blasters, 40 watt plasma rifles?

 

[dusty88]

It's interesting how times change, years ago you never heard a peep about ARs. All the socialist bile was directed at handguns of any type. have to wonder what it will be in the future, phasers, blasters, 40 watt plasma rifles?

Yep

I have a specific memory in the 1970s because I had a 5th grade teacher who liked to ramble about events and politics. I remember him saying the reason handguns were being banned is that you can't see what someone is going to do with a handgun, but you can see in advance if they have a long gun. (obviously he didn't think of the fact that you can't enforce handgun laws until the gun is used, but I digress)

The result is that it's often legal to carry rifles but not handguns, and now people are shocked about rifles.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Everybody take a a deep breath... everybody be cool.

 

[BigRed]

I dont agree with that but he handled himself well. Looking at all the information that came out in the trial im glad he was found innocent of everything.

Indeed. He handled himself EXCEEDINGLY well.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I gotta admit i was wrong about this. Not sure i shared my opinion on here but from everything i read which now has been proven completely untrue I was fooled. I never thought he was a murderer but thought he drove up there looking for trouble and found it. I still think whomever asked him to be there put a child in an extremely dangerous situation. I dont agree with that but he handled himself well. Looking at all the information that came out in the trial im glad he was found innocent of everything.

Maybe take this as a learning opportunity to stop trusting msm?