VERDICT: Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts

[Guest]

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:
I think we have a new Waterboy.

Either that or yall dont have much of a response. Id say its because badger hit the nail squarely on the head. 

So if we don't engage, we're wrong. But if we do engage and the thread turns into a shit show, that's fine? 

My opinion has already been encapsulated here. Isn't that enough? Or do I need to post links ad nauseam about this case that agree with my take? 

You engaged when you called Badger waterboy. 

[Guest]

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:
I think we have a new Waterboy.

Either that or yall dont have much of a response. Id say its because badger hit the nail squarely on the head. 

So if we don't engage, we're wrong. But if we do engage and the thread turns into a shit show, that's fine? 

My opinion has already been encapsulated here. Isn't that enough? Or do I need to post links ad nauseam about this case that agree with my take? 

You engaged when you called Badger waterboy. 

Yes, I did. But how does that make my take the 'wrong' take? Because I'm not following up with contrary opinions? That's my only point. They're out there, by the boatloads. Because 'ya'll don't have much of a response' is all that's required to declare an internet champion? Listen, this is the reason he was acquitted:

'Prosecutors said that Rittenhouse had put himself in danger through a series of reckless choices: He came to Kenosha during a period of violent and destructive riots; he armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle; he stayed there past curfew and after being separated from his group. They emphasized that he was the only person there to shoot someone.
But the law of self-defense in Wisconsin allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
"And if so, he's allowed to use essentially as much force as he thinks is reasonably necessary to stop the threat," said Kim.'
This self defense law of course is flawed....along with gun laws, but I get its a reasonable doubt issue. I'm not necessarily surprised by the verdict. I'm appalled for the same reason others are of like mind: He should have never been down there with a rifle looking for trouble. If I must post a link, I think this story encapsulates it for me:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ty/620737/

[Guest]

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:
I think we have a new Waterboy.

Either that or yall dont have much of a response. Id say its because badger hit the nail squarely on the head. 

So if we don't engage, we're wrong. But if we do engage and the thread turns into a shit show, that's fine? 

My opinion has already been encapsulated here. Isn't that enough? Or do I need to post links ad nauseam about this case that agree with my take? 

You engaged when you called Badger waterboy. 

Yes, I did. But how does that make my take the 'wrong' take? Because I'm not following up with contrary opinions? That's my only point. They're out there, by the boatloads. Because 'ya'll don't have much of a response' is all that's required to declare an internet champion? Listen, this is the reason he was acquitted:

'Prosecutors said that Rittenhouse had put himself in danger through a series of reckless choices: He came to Kenosha during a period of violent and destructive riots; he armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle; he stayed there past curfew and after being separated from his group. They emphasized that he was the only person there to shoot someone.
But the law of self-defense in Wisconsin allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
"And if so, he's allowed to use essentially as much force as he thinks is reasonably necessary to stop the threat," said Kim.'
This self defense law of course is flawed....along with gun laws, but I get its a reasonable doubt issue. I'm not necessarily surprised by the verdict. I'm appalled for the same reason others are of like mind: He should have never been down there with a rifle looking for trouble. If I must post a link, I think this story encapsulates it for me:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ty/620737/

We agree as to why he was acquitted pretty much. 

The only thing to add is he didnt go to Kenosha, he was already there. If the government wasnt going to protect the town, someone needed to. He had guns  pointed at him and people adavancing on him. He was perfectly justified in defending himself. The reason the prosecution‘s casessounded like amerature hour was because they had no case. 

He did break curfew though. I suppose if you want to give him community service or something, have at it. 

[Guest]

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:
I think we have a new Waterboy.

Either that or yall dont have much of a response. Id say its because badger hit the nail squarely on the head. 

So if we don't engage, we're wrong. But if we do engage and the thread turns into a shit show, that's fine? 

My opinion has already been encapsulated here. Isn't that enough? Or do I need to post links ad nauseam about this case that agree with my take? 

You engaged when you called Badger waterboy. 

Yea...I left the board for a long time after the original decision to eliminate OT threads so I missed out on the Waterboy reference.  Sticky and I actually joined this board on the same day during a dustup at Purple Thoughts with one of the mods (PegViking).

I believe that most if not all of us have agreed that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there in the first place.  Wisconsin Governor Evers should have sent the National Guard in to regain order in Kenosha but didn't because of "the optics" (his words).  He didn't want to call the Kenosha riot...a riot.  That would have been a much better solution instead of putting people and property at risk because of politics.  The past year we've had MSM outlets and Democrats calling protests that killed 20+ and Billions in damage and losses..."mostly peaceful"...even when they're standing in front of burning buildings or reporting deaths during the "protests".  Black clad and masked militants who caused a lot of that damage and mayhem...are not mostly peaceful...yet none here will call them out.  They've become the new muscle for the Democratic party (it used to me Union operatives).

Everyone that was there that night was violating the law.  NONE of them should have been there that night.  NONE.  Let's call all of them out.  Let's call out those that choose to burn, loot and put others in harms way.  As I said, peaceful protests are a part of the very fabric of this Country.  When they turn to destruction or violence...they are no longer protests.  Let's acknowledge it.  That's really all I asked.

[Guest]

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:
I think we have a new Waterboy.

Either that or yall dont have much of a response. Id say its because badger hit the nail squarely on the head. 

So if we don't engage, we're wrong. But if we do engage and the thread turns into a shit show, that's fine? 

My opinion has already been encapsulated here. Isn't that enough? Or do I need to post links ad nauseam about this case that agree with my take? 

You engaged when you called Badger waterboy. 

'Prosecutors said that Rittenhouse had put himself in danger through a series of reckless choices:

Seriously?  You quote the Prosecutor...you know...the guy that was trying to make the case against Rittenhouse when the law wasn't on his side?  Vinnie..you want to take this one?

[Guest]

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:

@AGRforever said:

@StickyBun said:
I think we have a new Waterboy.

Either that or yall dont have much of a response. Id say its because badger hit the nail squarely on the head. 

So if we don't engage, we're wrong. But if we do engage and the thread turns into a shit show, that's fine? 

My opinion has already been encapsulated here. Isn't that enough? Or do I need to post links ad nauseam about this case that agree with my take? 

You engaged when you called Badger waterboy. 

Yes, I did. But how does that make my take the 'wrong' take? Because I'm not following up with contrary opinions? That's my only point. They're out there, by the boatloads. Because 'ya'll don't have much of a response' is all that's required to declare an internet champion? Listen, this is the reason he was acquitted:

'Prosecutors said that Rittenhouse had put himself in danger through a series of reckless choices: He came to Kenosha during a period of violent and destructive riots; he armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle; he stayed there past curfew and after being separated from his group. They emphasized that he was the only person there to shoot someone.
But the law of self-defense in Wisconsin allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
"And if so, he's allowed to use essentially as much force as he thinks is reasonably necessary to stop the threat," said Kim.'
This self defense law of course is flawed....along with gun laws, but I get its a reasonable doubt issue. I'm not necessarily surprised by the verdict. I'm appalled for the same reason others are of like mind: He should have never been down there with a rifle looking for trouble. If I must post a link, I think this story encapsulates it for me:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ty/620737/

We agree as to why he was acquitted pretty much. 

The only thing to add is he didnt go to Kenosha, he was already there. If the government wasnt going to protect the town, someone needed to. He had guns  pointed at him and people adavancing on him. He was perfectly justified in defending himself. The reason the prosecution‘s casessounded like amerature hour was because they had no case. 

He did break curfew though. I suppose if you want to give him community service or something, have at it. 

One could say that the pedo shouldn't have been there either, and would still be alive if he didn't try to touch another underage boy.

One could also say that not-so-quickdraw "medic" shouldn't have been there with an illegal gun he transported across state lines.

Kyle fires at 4 felons that attacked him, his aim was true, only missing the jump-kick guy, and injured no one except those threatening his life.