WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:    1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Kyle Rittenhouse trial..  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 06:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Spatulapup

 

Joined: Mon Nov 22nd, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 4461
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If you want a laugh watch him on the stand. His attempt at crying alone will have you doubled over.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 07:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 3729
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Spatulapup wrote: If you want a laugh watch him on the stand. His attempt at crying alone will have you doubled over.

Doubled over?  Unfortunate choice of words given the circumstances.  

This is just more Jim Snow.  Rittenhouse should not be on trial.  Period.  The video of that night is crystal clear that he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Two days ago, the chief witness for the prosecution,Gaige Grosskreutz, whose bicep was vaporized by Rittenhouse, admitted point blank that Rittenhouse only fired after Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at him (while Rittenhouse was being beaten by two other deviant scumbags). But we don't live in a country with the rule of law, thus this farce continues. 

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. He'd have an evacuation quicker than Joe Biden at the Vatican.

Last edited on Wed Nov 10th, 2021 07:34 pm by KGB



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 07:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Ohio , USA
Posts: 6034
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
KGB wrote: Spatulapup wrote: If you want a laugh watch him on the stand. His attempt at crying alone will have you doubled over.

Doubled over?  Unfortunate choice of words given the circumstances.  

This is just more Jim Snow.  Rittenhouse should not be on trial.  Period.  The video of that night is crystal clear that he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Two days ago, the chief witness for the prosecution,Gaige Grosskreutz, whose bicep was vaporized by Rittenhouse, admitted point blank that Rittenhouse only fired after Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at him (while Rittenhouse was being beaten by two other deviant scumbags). But we don't live in a country with the rule of law, thus this farce continues. 

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. He'd have an evacuation quicker than Joe Biden at the Vatican.


I'm not historically a court watcher so maybe it happens often but it's been interesting to see what is coming to light now. 

Gaige already has a 10 million lawsuit filed against the city 

The police didnt execute the search warrant on Gaige's phone

the inconsistencies of Gaige's testimony compared to the police report interview 

new FBI drone footage surfaced after it was published that they had it but hadn't released it.

Other than the prosecution face palm yesterday my favorite part has been the testimony of Richie McGinnis 
 

Last edited on Wed Nov 10th, 2021 07:54 pm by Franchise



____________________
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lcN_TdJK0CY
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 08:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Benlen
5x fantasy baseball champ


Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 15453
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
KGB wrote:

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. 
I don't think a 17yr old Spatulapup is dumb enough to grab a rifle and head out onto the streets where all the protesters and rioters are. He might grab a rifle , lock the doors and defend himself that way. A 17yr old should never be handling a loaded weapon anyways.



____________________
Only thing harder than achieving excellence is maintaining it.
Dream Well. It may come true.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 08:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Superstar
'18-'19 POTY, 1st Ballot HOFer


Joined: Thu Jan 31st, 2008
Location: Dickshooter, Idaho USA
Posts: 8841
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
KGB wrote: Spatulapup wrote: If you want a laugh watch him on the stand. His attempt at crying alone will have you doubled over.

Doubled over?  Unfortunate choice of words given the circumstances.  

This is just more Jim Snow.  Rittenhouse should not be on trial.  Period.  The video of that night is crystal clear that he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Two days ago, the chief witness for the prosecution,Gaige Grosskreutz, whose bicep was vaporized by Rittenhouse, admitted point blank that Rittenhouse only fired after Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at him (while Rittenhouse was being beaten by two other deviant scumbags). But we don't live in a country with the rule of law, thus this farce continues. 

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. He'd have an evacuation quicker than Joe Biden at the Vatican.
You are missing a couple of key points here, unless I'm missing the bigger picture here that you may just be fucking with the 'Pup.  First, he's not old enough to own a gun or have a permit to carry in Wisconsin or Illinois.  So he took a gun that he was not allowed to own over state lines.  And he fired it at people.  He treated the night like a real life Call of Duty game.  And you say he shouldn't be on trial at all?  Why? 



____________________
"Jack Brisco grabbed my testicles once but I told him "Brisco, you have exactly 15 minutes to get your hands off my balls"." -WongLee 7/22/2017
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 08:39 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Ohio , USA
Posts: 6034
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Superstar wrote: KGB wrote: Spatulapup wrote: If you want a laugh watch him on the stand. His attempt at crying alone will have you doubled over.

Doubled over?  Unfortunate choice of words given the circumstances.  

This is just more Jim Snow.  Rittenhouse should not be on trial.  Period.  The video of that night is crystal clear that he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Two days ago, the chief witness for the prosecution,Gaige Grosskreutz, whose bicep was vaporized by Rittenhouse, admitted point blank that Rittenhouse only fired after Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at him (while Rittenhouse was being beaten by two other deviant scumbags). But we don't live in a country with the rule of law, thus this farce continues. 

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. He'd have an evacuation quicker than Joe Biden at the Vatican.
You are missing a couple of key points here, unless I'm missing the bigger picture here that you may just be fucking with the 'Pup.  First, he's not old enough to own a gun or have a permit to carry in Wisconsin or Illinois.  So he took a gun that he was not allowed to own over state lines.  And he fired it at people.  He treated the night like a real life Call of Duty game.  And you say he shouldn't be on trial at all?  Why? 


He didn't take it across state lines; the gun belongs to his friend. The same friend testified for the prosecution earlier in the case and under cross admitted he was hoping doing so would help him in his pending gun case. 



____________________
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lcN_TdJK0CY
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 08:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Ohio , USA
Posts: 6034
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Benlen wrote: KGB wrote:

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. 
I don't think a 17yr old Spatulapup is dumb enough to grab a rifle and head out onto the streets where all the protesters and rioters are. He might grab a rifle , lock the doors and defend himself that way. A 17yr old should never be handling a loaded weapon anyways.


Why shouldn't a 17 year old be able to handle a loaded weapon? 



____________________
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lcN_TdJK0CY
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 08:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Superstar
'18-'19 POTY, 1st Ballot HOFer


Joined: Thu Jan 31st, 2008
Location: Dickshooter, Idaho USA
Posts: 8841
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Franchise wrote: Superstar wrote: KGB wrote: Spatulapup wrote: If you want a laugh watch him on the stand. His attempt at crying alone will have you doubled over.

Doubled over?  Unfortunate choice of words given the circumstances.  

This is just more Jim Snow.  Rittenhouse should not be on trial.  Period.  The video of that night is crystal clear that he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Two days ago, the chief witness for the prosecution,Gaige Grosskreutz, whose bicep was vaporized by Rittenhouse, admitted point blank that Rittenhouse only fired after Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at him (while Rittenhouse was being beaten by two other deviant scumbags). But we don't live in a country with the rule of law, thus this farce continues. 

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. He'd have an evacuation quicker than Joe Biden at the Vatican.
You are missing a couple of key points here, unless I'm missing the bigger picture here that you may just be fucking with the 'Pup.  First, he's not old enough to own a gun or have a permit to carry in Wisconsin or Illinois.  So he took a gun that he was not allowed to own over state lines.  And he fired it at people.  He treated the night like a real life Call of Duty game.  And you say he shouldn't be on trial at all?  Why? 


He didn't take it across state lines; the gun belongs to his friend. The same friend testified for the prosecution earlier in the case and under cross admitted he was hoping doing so would help him in his pending gun case.
Ah - that clears up a big point for me, because the whole "crossing state lines" deal has been a problem for 100 years.  So that's a few less issues because he doesn't "own" the gun, it was loaned to him.  I honestly haven't followed any of this since the week it happened, so I am a bit rusty on the details.



____________________
"Jack Brisco grabbed my testicles once but I told him "Brisco, you have exactly 15 minutes to get your hands off my balls"." -WongLee 7/22/2017
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 09:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Benlen
5x fantasy baseball champ


Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 15453
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Franchise wrote: Benlen wrote: KGB wrote:

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. 
I don't think a 17yr old Spatulapup is dumb enough to grab a rifle and head out onto the streets where all the protesters and rioters are. He might grab a rifle , lock the doors and defend himself that way. A 17yr old should never be handling a loaded weapon anyways.


Why shouldn't a 17 year old be able to handle a loaded weapon? 
Under federal law, licensed dealers cannot sell or deliver handguns to individuals under age 21 or long guns to those under age 18. Unlicensed individuals cannot sell, transfer, or deliver handguns to individuals under age 18. With some exceptions, federal law prohibits individuals under age 18 from possessing handguns, but it does not place age restrictions on the possession of long guns (18 U.S.C. 922).
Firearm homicides and violent crimes disproportionately involve individuals under age 21, both as perpetrators and as victims. Indeed, in 2012, arrest rates for violent crimes peaked at age 18 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2016). Of the 8,545 firearm homicides committed in 2016 for which the age of the offender was known, 46.8 percent were perpetrated by individuals aged 12–24 (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang, 2018), although this group represents only 17.7 percent of the general U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). By influencing the possession of guns among youth, minimum age laws could, in theory, reduce rates of firearm crime perpetrated by juveniles. However, youth are similarly at high risk of victimization. Of all 2017 deaths among those aged 16–21, 16.8 percent were homicides, which is greater than the homicide rates for the next-highest risk ages (12.7 percent for those aged 22–27; 8.4 percent for those aged 28–33) (calculated using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019a). In theory, therefore, stricter age limits on purchasing or possessing a firearm could reduce the incidence of defensive gun use by youth and potentially increase perpetration of violence against younger populations if offenders believe that the likelihood of encountering armed resistance is lower (Marvell, 2001).



____________________
Only thing harder than achieving excellence is maintaining it.
Dream Well. It may come true.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 10:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Ohio , USA
Posts: 6034
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Benlen wrote: Franchise wrote: Benlen wrote: KGB wrote:

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. 
I don't think a 17yr old Spatulapup is dumb enough to grab a rifle and head out onto the streets where all the protesters and rioters are. He might grab a rifle , lock the doors and defend himself that way. A 17yr old should never be handling a loaded weapon anyways.


Why shouldn't a 17 year old be able to handle a loaded weapon? 
Under federal law, licensed dealers cannot sell or deliver handguns to individuals under age 21 or long guns to those under age 18. Unlicensed individuals cannot sell, transfer, or deliver handguns to individuals under age 18. With some exceptions, federal law prohibits individuals under age 18 from possessing handguns, but it does not place age restrictions on the possession of long guns (18 U.S.C. 922).
Firearm homicides and violent crimes disproportionately involve individuals under age 21, both as perpetrators and as victims. Indeed, in 2012, arrest rates for violent crimes peaked at age 18 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2016). Of the 8,545 firearm homicides committed in 2016 for which the age of the offender was known, 46.8 percent were perpetrated by individuals aged 12–24 (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang, 2018), although this group represents only 17.7 percent of the general U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). By influencing the possession of guns among youth, minimum age laws could, in theory, reduce rates of firearm crime perpetrated by juveniles. However, youth are similarly at high risk of victimization. Of all 2017 deaths among those aged 16–21, 16.8 percent were homicides, which is greater than the homicide rates for the next-highest risk ages (12.7 percent for those aged 22–27; 8.4 percent for those aged 28–33) (calculated using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019a). In theory, therefore, stricter age limits on purchasing or possessing a firearm could reduce the incidence of defensive gun use by youth and potentially increase perpetration of violence against younger populations if offenders believe that the likelihood of encountering armed resistance is lower (Marvell, 2001).


I was asking in general terms as your comment blanketed all 17 y/o's not just the one in this case. But if we are going to apply it to just this one then According to Wisconsin state law him having the rifle is a misdemeanor at worst for him or at best he is cleared by a hunting exemption. Personally I have no issue with a driving age kid being able to carry or handle a loaded firearm. 

As far as the data goes as you pointed out the legal age to own a handgun is 21 and most gun homicides involve handguns. How much higher does it need to be raised in your opinion? In these numbers do you know if they are counting police involved homicides? 



____________________
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lcN_TdJK0CY
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 11:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Benlen
5x fantasy baseball champ


Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 15453
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Franchise wrote: Benlen wrote: Franchise wrote: Benlen wrote: KGB wrote:

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. 
I don't think a 17yr old Spatulapup is dumb enough to grab a rifle and head out onto the streets where all the protesters and rioters are. He might grab a rifle , lock the doors and defend himself that way. A 17yr old should never be handling a loaded weapon anyways.


Why shouldn't a 17 year old be able to handle a loaded weapon? 
Under federal law, licensed dealers cannot sell or deliver handguns to individuals under age 21 or long guns to those under age 18. Unlicensed individuals cannot sell, transfer, or deliver handguns to individuals under age 18. With some exceptions, federal law prohibits individuals under age 18 from possessing handguns, but it does not place age restrictions on the possession of long guns (18 U.S.C. 922).
Firearm homicides and violent crimes disproportionately involve individuals under age 21, both as perpetrators and as victims. Indeed, in 2012, arrest rates for violent crimes peaked at age 18 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2016). Of the 8,545 firearm homicides committed in 2016 for which the age of the offender was known, 46.8 percent were perpetrated by individuals aged 12–24 (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang, 2018), although this group represents only 17.7 percent of the general U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). By influencing the possession of guns among youth, minimum age laws could, in theory, reduce rates of firearm crime perpetrated by juveniles. However, youth are similarly at high risk of victimization. Of all 2017 deaths among those aged 16–21, 16.8 percent were homicides, which is greater than the homicide rates for the next-highest risk ages (12.7 percent for those aged 22–27; 8.4 percent for those aged 28–33) (calculated using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019a). In theory, therefore, stricter age limits on purchasing or possessing a firearm could reduce the incidence of defensive gun use by youth and potentially increase perpetration of violence against younger populations if offenders believe that the likelihood of encountering armed resistance is lower (Marvell, 2001).


I was asking in general terms as your comment blanketed all 17 y/o's not just the one in this case. But if we are going to apply it to just this one then According to Wisconsin state law him having the rifle is a misdemeanor at worst for him or at best he is cleared by a hunting exemption. Personally I have no issue with a driving age kid being able to carry or handle a loaded firearm. 

As far as the data goes as you pointed out the legal age to own a handgun is 21 and most gun homicides involve handguns. How much higher does it need to be raised in your opinion? In these numbers do you know if they are counting police involved homicides? 
Its not JUST a misdemeanor in this case. He pulled the trigger killing someone.If he wants to be macho, he can enlist in the military where they can train him on how to use one. A person who drives has to be taught and pass a test. Did Rittenhouse have a permit? I don't know. Personally I would not trust a teenager with a gun , even  BB or Pellet.  A young person always thinks they are invincible and immune .



____________________
Only thing harder than achieving excellence is maintaining it.
Dream Well. It may come true.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Nov 10th, 2021 11:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Ohio , USA
Posts: 6034
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Benlen wrote: Franchise wrote: Benlen wrote: Franchise wrote: Benlen wrote: KGB wrote:

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. 
I don't think a 17yr old Spatulapup is dumb enough to grab a rifle and head out onto the streets where all the protesters and rioters are. He might grab a rifle , lock the doors and defend himself that way. A 17yr old should never be handling a loaded weapon anyways.


Why shouldn't a 17 year old be able to handle a loaded weapon? 
Under federal law, licensed dealers cannot sell or deliver handguns to individuals under age 21 or long guns to those under age 18. Unlicensed individuals cannot sell, transfer, or deliver handguns to individuals under age 18. With some exceptions, federal law prohibits individuals under age 18 from possessing handguns, but it does not place age restrictions on the possession of long guns (18 U.S.C. 922).
Firearm homicides and violent crimes disproportionately involve individuals under age 21, both as perpetrators and as victims. Indeed, in 2012, arrest rates for violent crimes peaked at age 18 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2016). Of the 8,545 firearm homicides committed in 2016 for which the age of the offender was known, 46.8 percent were perpetrated by individuals aged 12–24 (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang, 2018), although this group represents only 17.7 percent of the general U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). By influencing the possession of guns among youth, minimum age laws could, in theory, reduce rates of firearm crime perpetrated by juveniles. However, youth are similarly at high risk of victimization. Of all 2017 deaths among those aged 16–21, 16.8 percent were homicides, which is greater than the homicide rates for the next-highest risk ages (12.7 percent for those aged 22–27; 8.4 percent for those aged 28–33) (calculated using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019a). In theory, therefore, stricter age limits on purchasing or possessing a firearm could reduce the incidence of defensive gun use by youth and potentially increase perpetration of violence against younger populations if offenders believe that the likelihood of encountering armed resistance is lower (Marvell, 2001).


I was asking in general terms as your comment blanketed all 17 y/o's not just the one in this case. But if we are going to apply it to just this one then According to Wisconsin state law him having the rifle is a misdemeanor at worst for him or at best he is cleared by a hunting exemption. Personally I have no issue with a driving age kid being able to carry or handle a loaded firearm. 

As far as the data goes as you pointed out the legal age to own a handgun is 21 and most gun homicides involve handguns. How much higher does it need to be raised in your opinion? In these numbers do you know if they are counting police involved homicides? 
Its not JUST a misdemeanor in this case. He pulled the trigger killing someone.If he wants to be macho, he can enlist in the military where they can train him on how to use one. A person who drives has to be taught and pass a test. Did Rittenhouse have a permit? I don't know. Personally I would not trust a teenager with a gun , even  BB or Pellet.  A young person always thinks they are invincible and immune .


The actual charge for being under 18 is literally a misdemeanor. There are plenty of other charges as well that are felonies but this specific charge is a misdemeanor. 


These are the charges Kyle Rittenhouse faces in Kenosha shooting | PBS NewsHour


from the above article 


Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle. He was 17 years old on the night of the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting.


The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.



Wisconsin doesn't require a permit for Rifles. 


Young people often think they are invincible & old people always think they know better; both are often wrong.


Personally I don't think he should have been out there to try and protect property the city and state was just going to let burn. If they didn't care why should he? I don't think he was trying to be badass I think he naïvely thought he was doing something important.



Last edited on Wed Nov 10th, 2021 11:56 pm by Franchise



____________________
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lcN_TdJK0CY
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Nov 11th, 2021 02:05 am
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 8134
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I turned it on and did see his crying/hyperventalating episode. That shit looked about as real as my pain seeking patients telling me their pain is 10/10 as they play on their phone and then openly start the waterworks when I tell them they're getting Tramandol and not IV Dilaudid.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Nov 11th, 2021 03:07 am
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 3729
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Superstar wrote: KGB wrote: Spatulapup wrote: If you want a laugh watch him on the stand. His attempt at crying alone will have you doubled over.

Doubled over?  Unfortunate choice of words given the circumstances.  

This is just more Jim Snow.  Rittenhouse should not be on trial.  Period.  The video of that night is crystal clear that he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Two days ago, the chief witness for the prosecution,Gaige Grosskreutz, whose bicep was vaporized by Rittenhouse, admitted point blank that Rittenhouse only fired after Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at him (while Rittenhouse was being beaten by two other deviant scumbags). But we don't live in a country with the rule of law, thus this farce continues. 

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. He'd have an evacuation quicker than Joe Biden at the Vatican.
You are missing a couple of key points here, unless I'm missing the bigger picture here that you may just be fucking with the 'Pup.  First, he's not old enough to own a gun or have a permit to carry in Wisconsin or Illinois.  So he took a gun that he was not allowed to own over state lines.  And he fired it at people.  He treated the night like a real life Call of Duty game.  And you say he shouldn't be on trial at all?  Why? 


He didn't treat it like a video game at all.  In fact, he showed a trigger discipline, while confronted with a life-threatening mob attack, that was extremely impressive for such a young man.  Every police department in the land could use video of this incident as a lesson in how to maintain coolness under threat.  99% of cops in the same situation would have fired indiscriminately until they'd exhausted their ammunition.  As soon as he'd neutralized the immediate threat he stood up and coolly retreated.

Why shouldn't he be on trial?  Because. It. Was. Self. Defense.  You cannot watch footage of the event and conclude otherwise.



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Nov 11th, 2021 03:30 am
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Benlen
5x fantasy baseball champ


Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 15453
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
KGB wrote: Superstar wrote: KGB wrote: Spatulapup wrote: If you want a laugh watch him on the stand. His attempt at crying alone will have you doubled over.

Doubled over?  Unfortunate choice of words given the circumstances.  

This is just more Jim Snow.  Rittenhouse should not be on trial.  Period.  The video of that night is crystal clear that he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.  Two days ago, the chief witness for the prosecution,Gaige Grosskreutz, whose bicep was vaporized by Rittenhouse, admitted point blank that Rittenhouse only fired after Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at him (while Rittenhouse was being beaten by two other deviant scumbags). But we don't live in a country with the rule of law, thus this farce continues. 

I'd love to see a 17 year old Spatulapup on the stand, facing these charges, knowing that the color of his skin will be held against him by an angry mob. He'd have an evacuation quicker than Joe Biden at the Vatican.
You are missing a couple of key points here, unless I'm missing the bigger picture here that you may just be fucking with the 'Pup.  First, he's not old enough to own a gun or have a permit to carry in Wisconsin or Illinois.  So he took a gun that he was not allowed to own over state lines.  And he fired it at people.  He treated the night like a real life Call of Duty game.  And you say he shouldn't be on trial at all?  Why? 


He didn't treat it like a video game at all.  In fact, he showed a trigger discipline, while confronted with a life-threatening mob attack, that was extremely impressive for such a young man.  Every police department in the land could use video of this incident as a lesson in how to maintain coolness under threat.  99% of cops in the same situation would have fired indiscriminately until they'd exhausted their ammunition.  As soon as he'd neutralized the immediate threat he stood up and coolly retreated.

Why shouldn't he be on trial?  Because. It. Was. Self. Defense.  You cannot watch footage of the event and conclude otherwise.
What you are missing is Grosskruetz said he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse because he was afraid for his life. Your giving Rittenhouse a pass because he has a faster trigger finger. The two men who died were unarmed. The first guy try to take his rifle and took 4  shots and died. 4 shots at an unarmed man is not trigger discipline. Rittenhouse went to another location and tripped. Some guy kicked him and he fired twice missing him. Then the skate board guy came and hit him with it. He took two gun shots and died.



____________________
Only thing harder than achieving excellence is maintaining it.
Dream Well. It may come true.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 09:27 am Page:    1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Kyle Rittenhouse trial.. Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems