• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rioters and Looters Who Attacked Kyle Rittenhouse Cannot Be Called Victims By Prosecutors

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
That's vigilantism.
Which would not have been necessary usually. But if you saw the videos of that night you would know it was necessary then. Desperate times, desperate measures. And besides it's not illegal in many places to just be on the sidewalk with a gun if you have the proper permit.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Which would not have been necessary usually. But if you saw the videos of that night you would know it was necessary then. Desperate times, desperate measures. And besides it's not illegal in many places to just be on the sidewalk with a gun if you have the proper permit.
Or in some states without any permit at all. Open carry is allowed in most states. It is a concealed weapon that usually needs a permit.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
I disagree. I would not go that far. But if the prosecutor makes the same error that they have made in some other overly politicized trials he just might. I think that they could legitimately get a reckless endangerment judgment against him at the least.
Maybe a fine for being a minor, so not legal to carry in that state, but otherwise he should be cleared.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Maybe a fine for being a minor, so not legal to carry in that state, but otherwise he should be cleared.
I am not sure what sort of reckless endangerment laws that Wisconsin has, but bringing a gun to a protest, by anyone, does not seem to be a good idea to me. By the way, if the get Rittenhouse for reckless endangerment they would have to go after at least two of the protesters that were known to be armed.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
They lie because they can. It's a typical behavior trait by the leftist regime.

They ignore that it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

It's arguable that a person can be drivin and a victim of minuplation yet to be determined.

I don't see how a fair trial can be held if predetermined notions are made as fact. Not to mention freedom of speech.

Looks like Kangaroo Kourt is in session.
What upset me was that the news immediately got everything wrong and reported it anyway and immediately labeled him a white supremacist for no reason whatsoever.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
I am not sure what sort of reckless endangerment laws that Wisconsin has, but bringing a gun to a protest, by anyone, does not seem to be a good idea to me. By the way, if the get Rittenhouse for reckless endangerment they would have to go after at least two of the protesters that were known to be armed.
Bringing a gun to a riot to protect a car dealership you mean.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What upset me was that the news immediately got everything wrong and reported it anyway and immediately labeled him a white supremacist for no reason whatsoever.

Of course. That comes with the package.

Everyone who is right is a white supremacist. Even the black folks.

Oh Chappelle! We need Clayton Bigsby to set them proper on the supremacy front!

 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
I just edited my previous post. The source that I found, and relies on the prosecutor, said that he was being attacked during the first shooting too.
whether he was attacked or not its not self defense to shoot someone thats unarmed and running away from you in the back, unless you're a cop
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Yes. Not the brightest move ever. That is vigilantism. That is why he could be possibly charged with recklessly endangering safety. Though that law of Wisconsin's appears to be rather vague.
Unless they are going charge everyone else that was doing the same thing it hardly seems like a fair ruling.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
whether he was attacked or not its not self defense to shoot someone thats unarmed and running away from you in the back, unless you're a cop
But the police themselves indicate that he was not running away from him. The first man was shot when he tried to take away his weapon. Did you read the links that I provided?
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
But the police themselves indicate that he was not running away from him. The first man was shot when he tried to take away his weapon. Did you read the links that I provided?
do your research, he was shot in the back
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
do your research, he was shot in the back
I did my research. I posted that fact. One of the shots went in his back. So what?

Read my links. Read my quotes of the links. Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse and tried to take his gun away. Several shots were the result. One of the first ones likely hit him in the groin, that could have easily caused him to spin and the next one went in the back. When someone attacks a person that person is not supposed to wait after every shot to see if he is still attacking him. You are not being reasonable in this matter.

You would have a valid point if the only shots were in the back and the powder burns or lack of them indicated that it happened at a distance. This does not appear to be the case.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
You're trying hard to defend a dounle murderer, and I'm not accepting it, Kyle rittenhouse is white supremacist scum, do you want to defend that further?
 
Top