Kyle Rittenhouse... NOT GUILTY

[Stan Love]

Well at least they can put limbs back together. I was shocked as hell to see that Grosskrueutz guy with a functioning right arm!

Now he can slap his grandmother around again.

[billeau2]

The "rioters" should have stayed their ass home as well. It was a curfew in place. That's the whole point of a curfew, dumbo.


The idiotic argument that you are making is that because "rioters" were there, a 17 year old necessarily had to be there. That's just downright ******.

Ok T how about the argument that when you enter a specific place, you take the risk? So be it the nice looking women Ibad used as an example, who dresses provacatively in a shady night spot, walking through Central Park after Dark, being in an area that has a curfew, or any other example... Nobody in any of these places should consider themselves above the risk.

I say this because while there are differences: Going to a place to protest after the protest is over is a slightly different choice than assuming the risk to socialize, as is the choice where your dogs may need you to walk them so you enter the park at night... In all these situations one should expect to assume total responsability for protecting oneself.

Under these circumstances? ideally no one should have been there. There should have been no one violating curfew, therefore no need to protect property, therefore no individuals stepping up to protect property... Does this mean that any one group has more right than another to be there? Now, when I say this I am not talking about Kyle per se... I am talking about his parents, who IMO the responsible party involving the decision to put there son in this position. BUT even if we sub Kyle for the parents... Everyone imo has proverbial blood on their hands. What do you think?

[Stan Love]

The "rioters" should have stayed their ass home as well. It was a curfew in place. That's the whole point of a curfew, dumbo.


The idiotic argument that you are making is that because "rioters" were there, a 17 year old necessarily had to be there. That's just downright ******.

When thugs are burning down a town people might show up to put out fires. Blame it on the people starting the fires. The Governor should be dragged to the town square also,

[billeau2]

Well at least they can put limbs back together. I was shocked as hell to see that Grosskrueutz guy with a functioning right arm!

He got lucky where he was hit lol!

[OldTerry]

The "rioters" should have stayed their ass home as well. It was a curfew in place. That's the whole point of a curfew, dumbo.


The idiotic argument that you are making is that because "rioters" were there, a 17 year old necessarily had to be there. That's just downright ******.

Correct - Quite a few people made ****** decisions to be somewhere they shouldn't have been. My guess is that the dead (if they could) and wounded would in hindsight skipped the fun and games. Same goes for Rittenhouse. I'm sure that in hindsight he would have stayed at home. I need to quote one scripture here: (Proverbs 26:17) . . .Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.

When people ignore this principle they wind up getting bit.

[travestyny]

Ok T how about the argument that when you enter a specific place, you take the risk? So be it the nice looking women Ibad used as an example, who dresses provacatively in a shady night spot, walking through Central Park after Dark, being in an area that has a curfew, or any other example... Nobody in any of these places should consider themselves above the risk.

I say this because while there are differences: Going to a place to protest after the protest is over is a slightly different choice than assuming the risk to socialize, as is the choice where your dogs may need you to walk them so you enter the park at night... In all these situations one should expect to assume total responsability for protecting oneself.

Under these circumstances? ideally no one should have been there. There should have been no one violating curfew, therefore no need to protect property, therefore no individuals stepping up to protect property... Does this mean that any one group has more right than another to be there? Now, when I say this I am not talking about Kyle per se... I am talking about his parents, who IMO the responsible party involving the decision to put there son in this position. BUT even if we sub Kyle for the parents... Everyone imo has proverbial blood on their hands. What do you think?

I agree. No one should have been there, besides the police. Everyone who was there bears the blame for what happens to them for sure.

That's why I had such an issue with the police. They treated one group like they were welcome to be there, when everyone should have been viewed exactly the same in the eye of the law. No one should have been breaking curfew and no one should have been led to believe it was ok to break curfew. If the police would have said, "look guys, we appreciate what you are trying to do, but everyone should abide by the law and go home." Maybe then lives would have been saved.

[travestyny]

When thugs are burning down a town people might show up to put out fires. Blame it on the people starting the fires. The Governor should be dragged to the town square also,

That's for the police to handle, not 17 year olds or anyone else. When you have untrained civilians acting as police, this is what happens.


The police can't even do their jobs properly. It's not a surprise that civilians can't do it properly.

[JimRaynor]

That was not the main gist. If that bothers you so much, remove the 3 words “in another state”. It changes nothing. We do not need random citizens arming themselves and heading out to confront evil doers.

That's strange, I must've missed something, last I checked it was Rittenhouse who got confronted and attacked by all 3 of his assailants and not the other way around. I guess good thing as a random citizen he was armed afterall.

[Stan Love]

I agree. No one should have been there, besides the police. Everyone who was there bears the blame for what happens to them for sure.

That's why I had such an issue with the police. They treated one group like they were welcome to be there, when everyone should have been viewed exactly the same in the eye of the law. No one should have been breaking curfew and no one should have been led to believe it was ok to break curfew. If the police would have said, "look guys, we appreciate what you are trying to do, but everyone should abide by the law and go home." Maybe then lives would have been saved.

Lol.. let’s hope you are joking.

[travestyny]

Lol.. let’s hope you are joking.

?????


What happened to just comply? Doesn't fit the narrative now, huh? You guys keep changing the rules to fit your agenda. Not a surprise.