Lee Lofaso wrote to ALL <=-
So much for the concept of "liberty and justice for all."
The jury has rendered its verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse
case, making it clear to all in America that this land is
no longer the land of the free, but only of the brave.
Somehow the court upholding the right to defend yourself from an attacker is wrong to the Left.
Could it be that they want us all to give up our right to own guns? Ya, that'
working out so well for Australia right now.
Or is it that they want us to cower in our homes while their good squad "Antifa" (aka the modern version of Moussolini's Blackshirts) destroys our property and harms us?
The real reason for the outrage at the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: More people are going to be protecting their homes and property in the next riots. And th
gutless LARPers that make up most of the "protesters" will elect to stay home.
Those folks who are claiming that Kyle being found not guilty due to
self defense is some sort of slap in the face to BLM and the rights of non-whites, need to take a step back.
Do you not realize you are ruining the narrative?
The narrative has been that "BLM protesters are peaceful. They show
up during the day to have their voices heard. Those people who show
up when it gets dark, looking to riot, loot, and burn are trouble
makers who are not a part of the BLM."
You don't want to validate that belief, right?
The real reason for the outrage at the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: More people are going to be protecting their homes and property in the next riots. And the gutless LARPers that make up most of the "protesters"
will elect to stay home.
Do you think that Kyle was defending himself in Kenosha? Kyle shot dead two people. A third victim had a gun but choose not to use deadly force against a man who killed two people already and ended up shot himself.
The narrative has been that "BLM protesters are peaceful. They show
up during the day to have their voices heard. Those people who show
up when it gets dark, looking to riot, loot, and burn are trouble
makers who are not a part of the BLM."
The BLM protests are a different issue.
At no point did Kyle fire at anyone until they threatened him.
I got my booster on Monday, do you have yours yet?
So much for the concept of "liberty and justice for all."
The jury has rendered its verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse
case, making it clear to all in America that this land is
no longer the land of the free, but only of the brave.
Do you think that Kyle was defending himself in Kenosha? Kyle shot dead two people. A third victim had a gun but choose not to use deadly force against a man who killed two people already and ended up shot himself.
You don't buy it because you didn't watch the mountain of video
evidence last year. You don't buy it because you didn't watch the
trial except for maybe out of context clips presented by biased media.
You don't buy it because it doesn't fit the narrative crafted for you
by biased media and biased social media.
Anyone approaching the case from an un-biased position would come to
the same conclusion as the jury.
Whether or not Rittenhouse should have been there in the first place attempting to do what he was (protecting property) is up for debate. Whether or not all three counts were self-defence was obvious (even to this Canadian) to anyone who watched the videos and witness statements available a year ago. The trial confirmed it.
I don't blame you per se. I blame media , corporate media to be
specific. Instead of news we get narrative tainted with bias. We get
lies of omission. We get opinion presented as fact. The average
person doesn't have the time to dig to find sources. The average
person isn't inclined to do so either.
Get you facts straight first.
1. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away from the crowd when he was
attacked.
2. One of the thugs was attempting to stomp on his head
which we know can cause critical injury or death. Kyle ended that
threat against his life.
3. Another thug was using a skateboard as a weapon against Kyle to
which Kyle stopped that threat against his life.
4. Now for the pedophile with the gun (who shouldn't have even
been carrying one...)
He had pointed the gun at Kyle and said he was going to kill him.
Read the court transcripts people, the jury got it right.
Alan Ianson wrote to Mike Powell <=-
Kyle was the threat, he already killed two people. The two that he
killed did not have a gun but Kyle killed them. Supposedly in self defense. I don't buy it.
Sorry, can't quote at the moment (long story, my Retro Wifi device is
sort of borken).
You said where did I get that idea. Well from your own words. Then
you said "I believe". Well this is about evidence and law, not
personal beliefs, neither mine or yours.
Oh, one more thing. Rittenhouse's use of lethal force would have been legal even here in Canada (yes I know gun laws are different).
One doesn't have to meet a threatening force with an equal force. You
can shoot someone with not weapon because someone with no weapon can
still kill you. The belief that your life was in danger and the
evidence to back up that belief is all that is required.
Your arguments boil down to Kyle shouldn't have been there in the
first place, at least not with his rifle.
Well that may (or may not) be true, but it has nothing to do with self-defence. It is an argument no different than saying a woman
deserved to be raped because of what she was wearing or where she was. Even prostitutes can be raped and their rapists charged and convicted.
A skateboard can be a deadly weapon.
and Grosskreutz pointed his weapon at Kyle's head AFTER he put his
hands up.
This was in his testimony and repeated on news video many times. Hence
the meme of the prosecutor doing the face palm.
Clearly you did not watch the trial as you claim.
Kyle was the threat, he already killed two people. The two that
he killed did not have a gun but Kyle killed them. Supposedly in
self defense. I don't buy it.
"... and what makes them [Lefties] tremendously dangerous is that
facts that contradict what they believe are simply ignored or evaded."
-- Thomas Sowell
Get you facts straight first.
1. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away from the crowd when he was
attacked.
Somebody fired a shot and Kyle turned to the crowd. That shot was not fired
by Rosenbaum since he was unarmed.
2. One of the thugs was attempting to stomp on his head
which we know can cause critical injury or death. Kyle ended that
threat against his life.
Yes he did. He shot a man four times with an AR15 at close range. An unarmed
man.
3. Another thug was using a skateboard as a weapon against Kyle to
which Kyle stopped that threat against his life.
The skateboard was not a deadly weapon. An AR15 is a deadly weapon.
4. Now for the pedophile with the gun (who shouldn't have even
been carrying one...)
Kyle Rittenhouse was parading around with an AR15, killed two unarmed men, and your issue is a man with a handgun and an expired concealed carry permit, who didn't use it?
If Grosskreutz wanted to kill someone he would/could have, but he didn't. He
wasn't there to kill anyone.
Grosskreutz had his hands up, he surrendered and Kyle reracked his gun and shot him. This is in evidence.
Grosskreutz is a trained paramedic and treated nearly a dozen people that night. His reasons for being there are very different from Kyle's reasons.
He had pointed the gun at Kyle and said he was going to kill him.
I haven't heard that before. Are you sure that is true?
Read the court transcripts people, the jury got it right.
If it is true that you can kill someone you perceive to be a threat in Wisconsin then yes, the jury got it right.
At no point did Kyle fire at anyone until they threatened him.
Kyle was the threat, he already killed two people. The two that he killed did not have a gun but Kyle killed them. Supposedly in self defense. I don't buy it.
You don't buy it because you didn't watch the mountain of video evidence last year. You don't buy it because you didn't watch the trial except for maybe out of context clips presented by biased media. You don't buy it because it doesn't fit the narrative crafted for you by biased media and biased social media.
Anyone approaching the case from an un-biased position would come to the same conclusion as the jury.
Whether or not Rittenhouse should have been there in the first place attempting to do what he was (protecting property) is up for debate. Whether or not all three counts were self-defence was obvious (even to this Canadian) to anyone who watched the videos and witness statements available a year ago. The trial confirmed it.
I don't blame you per se. I blame media , corporate media to be specific. Instead of news we get narrative tainted with bias. We get lies of omission. We get opinion presented as fact. The average person doesn't have the time to dig to find sources. The average person isn't inclined to do so either.
3. Another thug was using a skateboard as a weapon against Kyle to which Kyle stopped that threat against his life.
The skateboard was not a deadly weapon. An AR15 is a deadly weapon.
He had pointed the gun at Kyle and said he was going to kill him.
I haven't heard that before. Are you sure that is true?
Your arguments boil down to Kyle shouldn't have been there in the first place, at least not with his rifle. Well that may (or may not) be true, but it has nothing to do with self-defence. It is an argument no different than saying a woman deserved to be raped because of what she was wearing or where she was. Even prostitutes can be raped and their rapists charged and convicted.
Hello Doug,
A skateboard can be a deadly weapon.
It could be but it was not a weapon on that night, It was someone's mode of transportation. A skateboard is nothing compared to the AR15 Kyle was using that night.
and Grosskreutz pointed his weapon at Kyle's head AFTER he put his hands up.
That is not true.
This was in his testimony and repeated on news video many times. Hence the meme of the prosecutor doing the face palm.
Grosskreutz spoke the truth on the stand.
Nevertheless, he did kill two unarmed men and maim another. He'll admit that to you if you ask him.
1. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away from the crowd when he was attacked.
Somebody fired a shot and Kyle turned to the crowd. That shot was not fired by Rosenbaum since he was unarmed.
Yes he did. He shot a man four times with an AR15 at close range. An unarmed man.
The skateboard was not a deadly weapon. An AR15 is a deadly weapon.
Kyle Rittenhouse was parading around with an AR15, killed two unarmed
men, and your issue is a man with a handgun and an expired concealed carry permit, who didn't use it?
If Grosskreutz wanted to kill someone he would/could have, but he
didn't. He wasn't there to kill anyone.
Grosskreutz had his hands up, he surrendered and Kyle reracked his gun
and shot him. This is in evidence.
This is not a court of law and I am only speaking my opinion. I think
Kyle Rittenhouse is a killer, pure and simple. I believe that based on what I have heard/seen/read about the case.
I don't think so. I don't think Kyle would have had a case for self defense in Canada. In Canada you can use equal force if need be. You
can use your fists if someone uses their fists against you. If you
shoot an unarmed person in Canada you are going to be in a world of
hurt.
and Grosskreutz pointed his weapon at Kyle's head AFTER he put his hands up.
That is not true.
Grosskreutz spoke the truth on the stand.
Clearly you did not watch the trial as you claim.
I made no such claim. Based on what I have read and seen I don't believe Kyle's life was in any danger. People were trying to disarm him, not
kill him.
A skateboard can be a deadly weapon.
It could be but it was not a weapon on that night, It was someone's mode of transportation. A skateboard is nothing compared to the AR15 Kyle
was using that night.
Nevertheless, he did kill two unarmed men and maim another. He'll admit that to you if you ask him.
Kyle went by himself, with no backup, with a fully loaded AR-15 semi automatic rifle, to a hostile crowd - in essence looking for trouble
so he would have an excuse to use his weapon on live people. Naturally,
he found exactly what he was looking for, and took full advantage of
the situation.
Kyle had a full metal jacket. Not hollow points, but the same kind
of bullets that soldiers use to kill enemy soldiers with. The kind
of bullets that go through a person and hit others as well. IOW,
the kind of bullets made for killing people, not just stopping
them. The clip in his big gun held 30 rounds of those bullets.
And his weapon was locked and loaded, held securely by a strap
around his body with his hands holding the weapon ready to fire.
Kyle did not fire all 30 rounds. He only fired 4 shots, hitting
four targets, killing two people, critically injuring a third, and
a fourth in the arm. Nice shooting for a 17-year-old kid. The Army
should sign him up, just like it did Timothy McVeigh.
Although a skateboard can be used as a deadly weapon, it can also
be used as an attempt to protect oneself from a guy holding a loaded
gun.
A kid, too young to legally possess a weapon, fully loaded and
ready for action, going alone to a hostile crowd looking for trouble.
And after he was charged and brought to trial, he put on a show for
the cameras, sobbing for the jurors in an appeal for sympathy. What
an actor. Hollywood should sign him up, and let the Army off the
hook.
In many cases I'd agree. In Al's case, I think it is his own bias showing. The guy had a gun so to Al he is automatically right wing and very bad.
Kyle was the threat, he already killed two people. The two that he
killed did not have a gun but Kyle killed them. Supposedly in self
defense. I don't buy it.
They attacked him first. But don't let the facts cloud your
feeling-based conclusions.
I haven't heard that before. Are you sure that is true?
He admitted on the stand that Kyle did not point his gun at him until
he pointed his at Kyle's. Kyle shot him before he had a chance to
shoot Kyle.
Nevertheless, he did kill two unarmed men and maim another. He'll
admit that to you if you ask him.
The way that is written, you are suggesting the "another" was not
armed. I know you will come back later and claim that is not what you said.
But not Al. Anyone with a gun is a bad person, well unless they were
like the third guy shot, who was there to cause trouble for a cause
that Al is probably good with.
You can sit in your chair at your keyboard and say Kyle Rittenhouse
did not shoot Grosskreutz
but you were not there and you were not the one being attacked,
remember Kyle was running AWAY from the mob and toward police.
So then it comes down to do you believe Rittenhouse is a killer
because he shouldn't have been there in the first place?
Or do you believe that because you believe he should have surrendered
to Rosebaum?
A common misconception here (Canada). You only need to believe (and
prove) your life was in danger. Clearly if someone has a knife and
you have a gun the law (in Canada) does not expect you to run to the kitchen and grab a knife. Same with fists. People are not equal in
their size/skill with handling an attacker. Now in general terms you
are much more likely in Canada to have to prove it was self-defence in court but cases where it was deemed self-defence and no charges were
laid have happened a few times in the past few years. One case was in
NL and the other ON if my memory serves.
Clearly you did not watch the trial as you claim.
I made no such claim. Based on what I have read and seen I don't
believe Kyle's life was in any danger. People were trying to
disarm him, not kill him.
Again, clearly you have not watched any of the evidence.
You may have seen something on some biased news sight, but you have
not watched the video evidence nor any of the trial. If you had you
would not be making the claims you are. You certainly may be saying Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there in the first place or whatever.
But as to his attackers, well you'd realize and know that they were
indeed attackers.
So in the video when Huber smashed Rittenhouse in the head with the skateboard as seen in the trial, that didn't actually happen?
With all due respect Alan, time to stop posting for a while and
actually go watch the trial evidence videos. And don't do it on some corporate media website. Try to find the source unedited and with no commentary. Maybe Court TV here: https://www.courttv.com/trials/wi-v-rittenhouse-2021/
I don't think anyone needed to be shot or killed that day.
I don't think Kyle would have a case for self defense. He was the real threat, he was the one with the gun. The only other person (involved) with a gun choose not to use it.
I did watch some of the trial. I did not have time to watch all of it since I have family/work to deal with and the trial went on for some time.
Every single one of us has our bias. Everyone, we can't help that. Every news outlet also has their own bias. This is normal and not some conspiracy.
Yes, it did. A skateboard is simply not a weapon as say, an AR-15.
I have seen much of the video, really very much and I'll keep reading/watching.
I still think Kyle Rittenhouse is a killer. Not the first and he won't
be the last, unfortunately.
You can sit in your chair at your keyboard and say Kyle Rittenhouse
did not shoot Grosskreutz
Yes, I can.
but you were not there and you were not the one being attacked,
remember Kyle was running AWAY from the mob and toward police.
I'd run too if a mob formed after I killed two people.
Clearly you also did not watch the trial or read any facts of what transpired.
Kyle went by himself, with no backup, with a fully loaded AR-15 semi
automatic rifle, to a hostile crowd - in essence looking for trouble
so he would have an excuse to use his weapon on live people. Naturally,
he found exactly what he was looking for, and took full advantage of
the situation.
False.
He did not go by himself.
This was established by evidence in the trial you missed.
What he was looking for and "found" is your opinion and nothing more.
Kyle had a full metal jacket. Not hollow points, but the same kind
of bullets that soldiers use to kill enemy soldiers with. The kind
of bullets that go through a person and hit others as well. IOW,
the kind of bullets made for killing people, not just stopping
them. The clip in his big gun held 30 rounds of those bullets.
And his weapon was locked and loaded, held securely by a strap
around his body with his hands holding the weapon ready to fire.
Apparently you know little about ammunition. Full metal jacket ammunition is
the most common you will find for .223/5.56 calibre. Any calibre and type of ammunition can be lethal, but hollow points are designed to be more lethal than full metal jacket, not less. That is why hunting regulations in various jurisdictions restrict the use of full metal jacket and most hunting ammunition is hollow point or soft point. Also, nobody who knows anything about that calibre would call that gun "big". As for it being "locked and loaded". Yes. It would not serve the purpose of self-defence very well if it wasn't ready to be used.
Kyle did not fire all 30 rounds. He only fired 4 shots, hitting
four targets, killing two people, critically injuring a third, and
a fourth in the arm. Nice shooting for a 17-year-old kid. The Army
should sign him up, just like it did Timothy McVeigh.
Obvious you didn't follow the trial.
He did not injure or "hit" a fourth person.
It was, however, a display of amazing muzzle and trigger discipline.
Rittenhouse did not shoot at anyone who was not an immediate threat.
He would do well, not in the army, but in the police in a scenario where you
have a mixture of "good guys" and "bad guys".
But I don't think that will be his path.
Although a skateboard can be used as a deadly weapon, it can also
be used as an attempt to protect oneself from a guy holding a loaded
gun.
Which, again as the evidence in the trial (clear video evidence) shows, was
not the case here.
Huber was chasing Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse ran towards the police.
Someone knocked Rittenhouse down and as Rittenhouse was on the ground (and not pointing his rifle at anyone)
Huber came up to him and cracked him on the head with his skateboard.
You'd know this if you watched the trial or stayed away from CNN/MSNBC coverage.
A kid, too young to legally possess a weapon, fully loaded and
ready for action, going alone to a hostile crowd looking for trouble.
And after he was charged and brought to trial, he put on a show for
the cameras, sobbing for the jurors in an appeal for sympathy. What
an actor. Hollywood should sign him up, and let the Army off the
hook.
Also false. Possession was legal as the law in that jurisdiction stated someone his age (17 at the time) could possess a long gun (rifle).
He did not "cross state lines" with it either.
It was in the possession of his older friend in Kenosha already.
His friend gave him the rifle (his friends has been charged with some firearms offence however).
As for putting on a show, well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it
of course.
I don't think it was a show but regardless, the crying moment was irrelevant
to the facts of the case which you woefully lack in your knowledge thereof.
Go watch the case, and don't tell me you did because it is painfully obvious
you got all your talking points from network TV.
I don't think anyone needed to be shot or killed that day.
We call that type of answer a cop-out.
A very Canadian perspective. This happened in the US. Not only was it legal for Rittenhouse to have that gun in that location, it was his protected Constitutional right.
As for Grosskreutz, you say he chose not to use it. He didn't choose
not to use it. He tried to use it and Rittenhouse reacted to that
attempt and stopped him.
You can believe whatever falsehoods you want, but the video evidence
and Grosskreutz's testimony say otherwise.
This is why the jury found Rittenhouse not guilty on that charge and
why the prosecutor had that epic facepalm moment during Grosskreutz's cross examination.
Yes, it did. A skateboard is simply not a weapon as say, an
AR-15.
Typical Canadian (I too am Canadian) thought process. Anything can be
a weapon. Did you know in Canada that a third of all homicides are commited with hands and feet? Did you know that in Canada the most
common weapon used in domestic violence is any readily available blunt object?
There are two types of people, generally speaking. And I'm not being insulting with this as the world needs both types. There are those
who think emotionally and those who think logically. You are thinking emotionally.
but you were not there and you were not the one being attacked,
remember Kyle was running AWAY from the mob and toward police.
I'd run too if a mob formed after I killed two people.
Kyle was the threat, he already killed two people. The two that he
killed did not have a gun but Kyle killed them. Supposedly in self
defense. I don't buy it.
They attacked him first. But don't let the facts cloud your feeling-based conclusions.
They wanted to disarm him because he was seen as a threat. That threat proved to be real.
They attacked him first. But don't let the facts cloud your feeling-based conclusions.
They wanted to disarm him because he was seen as a threat. That threat proved to be real.
Nevertheless, he did kill two unarmed men and maim another. He'll
admit that to you if you ask him.
The way that is written, you are suggesting the "another" was not
armed. I know you will come back later and claim that is not what you said.
You are reading into what I said.
I said that Rittenhouse killed two unarmed men and maimed another. And yes, je
will admit that to you if you ask him.
Rittenhouse made different choices. That is why I think Rittenhouse is a killer.
That is true. The point I am trying to make is that Grosskreutz didn't fire his gun. At anyone. He had opportunity to kill Rittenhouse at that point if he
choose too, but he choose not to so.
That is true, there are many ways to kill a person. A gun is not needed, it just makes it easier to get the deed done.
He was being chased BEFORE he shot at anyone. He did not shoot at
anyone until he'd already been chased, caught, and threatened with violence.
They attacked him first. But don't let the facts cloud your
feeling-based conclusions.
Smart people who are not armed would not chase someone who has a gun.
He did not threaten until chased. He did not shoot until threatened.
Now, for someone like you, I am sure that the mere fact that he had a
gun means he was a threat. But that would also make the one survivor
of the three a threat because he also had a gun.
One of them was beating him in the head, proving their threat real.
One claimed he was going to kill Kyle, stating that they intended to
be a real threat.
One pointed a gun at Kyle, proving their threat real.
Like Doug said, you much be forming an opinion while either not paying attention to, or just plain ignoring, the evidence and facts.
I said that Rittenhouse killed two unarmed men and maimed another.
And yes, je will admit that to you if you ask him.
I am reading into what you said because that is how you worded it.
You like doing that.
And just like many other times, if someone were to read that and point
out that they didn't know that all three were not armed and maybe
start agreeing with you thinking they were all unarmed you would NOT correct them. Just like when someone mistakes your opinion as one of a
US citizen and you don't correct them.
If I were to say "he shot one armed man and killed two others" I am
100% sure that you, Jeff-T, and probably others would question that statement, and rightfully so. It is no less misleading than your statement here, and no more misleading than several other statements
you make here.
If your definition of a killer includes anyone who has to kill someone
in order to defend their own life, then there are a lot of killers out there. Nice to know you pass such judgement on them.
Based on this statement, and many others over the past couple of days,
you are also not comfortable with defending yourself, with a gun,
against someone who does not have a gun.
So, apparently you are not allowed to defend yourself with a gun if someone is beating you upside the head with some other non-gun object, like a rock or a skateboard?
Good luck with that also. We will miss you.
I followed enough of the trial and learned enough facts to know
and understand what transpired. It is others who failed to comprehend
what happened and why.
Oh, you think people needed to be shot and killed?
My perspective runs deeper than that. It's not a Canadian perspective, it's mine. I couldn't say how Canadians feel generally about any of
this.
Sure the constitution gives you the right to have and bear arms. I don't think the authors of the constitution had any of this in mind.
There is a time and place in this world for arms. This is not one of
them.
You told me yourself that Grosskreutz pointed the gun at him. I am
saying that Grosskreutz choose not to use it.
We haven't heard from the jury yet. We may at some point. I don't know
why the jury found Rittenhouse not guilty. They may believe he was innocent or they may have found he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is true, there are many ways to kill a person. A gun is not needed, it just makes it easier to get the deed done.
Kyle Rittenhouse was the shooter/killer in this case.
There is no emotion in that statement, it is straight up logic based on fact.
Kyle Rittenhouse and his AR-15 was the threat.
So people should be handicapped in their ability to defend themselves?
Or is it okay to use a better weapon than your attacker?
Kyle Rittenhouse was the shooter/killer in this case.
There is no emotion in that statement, it is straight up logic
based on fact.
It's loaded with emotion. "shooter/killer" is a loaded term. Just like calling those he shot "victims".
The judge didn't allow that for a reason.
Rittenhouse was accused of murder. He was found not-guilty of
murder. He did commit homicide in his self-defence. But homicide,
though commonly mistaken for murder, is just a term. There are
different types of homicide. When police shoot and kill a gunman it is homicide. But it isn't murder. We don't call those policemen
murderers.
My perspective runs deeper than that. It's not a Canadian
perspective, it's mine. I couldn't say how Canadians feel
generally about any of this.
No it's not. It's a typical Canadian perspective.
The real problem is not that Rittenhouse was there. The real problem
is the police, at the behest of Democrat politicians (mayor, governor) were doing nothing, letting the rioting (not protesting) go on for
three days.
You told me yourself that Grosskreutz pointed the gun at him. I
am saying that Grosskreutz choose not to use it.
You are wrong. He was in the act of trying to use it and Rittenhouse
was simply faster.
I don't think anyone needed to be shot or killed that day.
We call that type of answer a cop-out.
Oh, you think people needed to be shot and killed?
If the threat is not stopped by your gun then use the gun to stop that threat in a non lethal way, don't shoot to kill if it can be avoided.
Don't use more force then is needed to stop the threat.
That statement is factual and emotionless. It is the truth.
Yes, in the trial you couldn't call the victims, "victims" but you could call the them rioters/looters.
Rittenhouse was not in a very good position to right any perceived
wrongs.
These kinds of issues are best left to police along with national guard when needed.
You are wrong. He was in the act of trying to use it and Rittenhouse was simply faster.
I don't see that in evidence and I don't believe that is the case.
I followed enough of the trial and learned enough facts to know
and understand what transpired. It is others who failed to comprehend
what happened and why.
Right...Lee knows best (I've been on and off FidoNet long enough over they years to know this).
The rest of your post is just whacked Lee troll-speak so I'm done. You can have the last word if you want. You win. Go celebrate your victory of lunacy.
My perspective runs deeper than that. It's not a Canadianperspective,
it's mine. I couldn't say how Canadians feel generally about any of
this.
No it's not. It's a typical Canadian perspective.
Sure the constitution gives you the right to have and bear arms. Idon't
think the authors of the constitution had any of this in mind.
Because you've probably never read (maybe even never heard of) the Federalist Papers.
There is a time and place in this world for arms. This is not one of
them.
The real problem is not that Rittenhouse was there.
The real problem is the police,
at the behest of Democrat politicians (mayor, governor) were doing nothing,
letting the rioting (not protesting) go on for three days.
The jury was also not allowed to hear evidence that Kyle wanted to shoot rioters/looters but here in the real world we know these facts.
Rittenhouse was not in a very good position to right any perceived
wrongs.
These kinds of issues are best left to police along with national guard when needed.
It wouldn't of mattered how much you watched of the trial.I followed enough of the trial and learned enough facts to know
and understand what transpired. It is others who failed to comprehen
what happened and why.
Right and I been here also for a number of years, and unlike you I have my own node within fidonet.Right...Lee knows best (I've been on and off FidoNet long enough over years to know this).
Out of arguments already? No surprise there.I know nothing of Doug, but something tells he may not be done with you
Still out of arguments? No surprise there. But hey. Keep trying.and I in yours Lee, and believe me, it will only make you smarter.
It's fun living rent free inside your head.
Why was he being chased? My understanding is that they wanted to disarm him because he was seen as a threat. That threat proved to be real.
One of them was beating him in the head, proving their threat real.
Kyle had killed on person at that point and the crowd of people around him wanted to disarm him for obvious reasons.
Now, for someone like you, I am sure that the mere fact that he had a gun means he was a threat. But that would also make the one survivor
of the three a threat because he also had a gun.
Yes, the mere fact he brought an AR-15. He did prove to be a threat did he not?
One pointed a gun at Kyle, proving their threat real.
No threat. That person had the opportunity to use deadly force but choose not too.
Like Doug said, you much be forming an opinion while either not paying attention to, or just plain ignoring, the evidence and facts.
I am looking at the facts.
I said that Rittenhouse killed two unarmed men and maimed another.
And yes, je will admit that to you if you ask him.
I am reading into what you said because that is how you worded it.
You like doing that.
I worded that as it is. I'm going to say it again.
Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people and maimed another. That's just a fact. That is not a summary of the events of that day. It's a simple fact.
And just like many other times, if someone were to read that and point out that they didn't know that all three were not armed and maybe
start agreeing with you thinking they were all unarmed you would NOT correct them. Just like when someone mistakes your opinion as one of a US citizen and you don't correct them.
We have discussed (you and I) as well as others in this area who was armed and
who was not. The facts are all here.
If I were to say "he shot one armed man and killed two others" I am
100% sure that you, Jeff-T, and probably others would question that statement, and rightfully so. It is no less misleading than your statement here, and no more misleading than several other statements
you make here.
Don't take things out of context. The statement "Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people and maimed another" is true. It is not a headline and it is not a summary of events, it is a true statement.
I said that Rittenhouse killed two unarmed men and maimed another.
And yes, je will admit that to you if you ask him.
Al usually doesn't use that tactic. He usually doubles-down then
later claims he never made whatever misleading or easily-proven-false statement, even when it is quoted back to him.
The statement I made is true and yes, I'll double down on the truth.
Yes, in the trial you couldn't call the victims, "victims" but you could call the them rioters/looters.
These kinds of issues are best left to police along with national guard when needed.
You are wrong. He was in the act of trying to use it and Rittenhouse
was simply faster.
I don't see that in evidence and I don't believe that is the case.
Kyle Rittenhouse shot two people dead, critically injuring one person,
and shooting another person in the arm. Four shots fired, four persons hit. No police around to stop him.
Oh, you think people needed to be shot and killed?
Kyle had to give a public demonstration as to what his gun
was capable of doing to real people. He succeeded.
Don't use more force then is needed to stop the threat.
This is nonsense that people not familiar with firearms and shooting
in stressful situations say.
There is a reason military and police are trained to shoot centre of
mass. Anything else is Hollywood garbage I'm afraid.
When you aim a firearm at someone it is because you are prepared to
use lethal force. There is no other reason to do so.
That statement is factual and emotionless. It is the truth.
Hardly. And people on your side of the argument are careful to avoid calling Rosenbaum a convicted multiple child rapist. They fail to call Huber a convicted violent domestic abuser. They fail to call
Grosskreutz a convicted violent person and thief. But sure,
Rittenhouse is a "shooter/killer".
Yes, in the trial you couldn't call the victims, "victims" but
you could call the them rioters/looters.
Because they were.
What do you call someone who lights a dumpster on fire and pushes it towards a gas station? This was part of the defence. That Rittenhouse
was there to protect property from rioters. He stopped the flaming dumpster that the rioters lit and pushed towards the gas station. It
is correct and relevant.
"shooter/killer" is as loaded as calling the attackers "victims".
Best left to police and the national guard. Sure. But they weren't
doing anything. The governor didn't call in the national guard and the mayor had the police stand back and do nothing. Rittenhouse was doing
the work of men. The men who stood back and did nothing.
I don't see that in evidence and I don't believe that is the
case.
The jury saw that in evidence. People without partisan views saw that
in evidence. People without fantastical notions of how self-defence
should work saw that in evidence.
It is simple really, you see it, but your brain isn't capable of
admitting it because then you would have to admit you were wrong. I'm
not going to go so far as to suggest you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. But you simply aren't capable of changing your beliefs regardless of the truth set out before you.
The jury was also not allowed to hear evidence that Kyle wanted
to shoot rioters/looters but here in the real world we know these
facts.
No they are NOT fact's, they are lies.
Kyle Rittenhouse came to the riots to help people and protect a
business. The rioters cam there to set fires, loot and in some cases
try to kill. Stop depending on the left wing media for your narrative,
do a little deeper dive and read the court transcripts.
The problem is Mayors in a lot of democratically controlled cities let
the rioters get completely out of control BEFORE the allow the police
in to do there job OR call in the National Guard. By then it is to
late and there is millions of dollars of damage to businesses and property. So businesses and citizens are left on there own to protect there property and businesses.
What would you call him? A peaceful protester?
It's not nonsense. There is no need to use deadly force in many cases
when it is used.
The military is trained to shoot to kill. That's what the military does and is trained to do.
All this action and adventure is Hollywood.
Part of gun training is aiming your weapon. This is an important detail. If you can't aim your weapon you will never hit your target. A person trained to use a gun can aim it and use deadly force when needed.
If it doesn't you don't need to shoot to kill, you can shoot to stop the threat in a non lethal way.
So what you are saying is that it is OK because Rittenhouse didn't kill "good" people, he only killed "bad" people?
Were they? All of the people there were rioting/looting? Or maybe it was just Rittenhouses victims?
Rittenhouse killed two people. Did those people light a dumpster on fire and send it towards a gas station?
I don't think Rittenhouse is old enough to know what it means to protect property and how to do it.
He is a young man who was put in a bad situation and it turned out badly for him and his victims.
Kyle Rittenhouse is the shooter/killer in this case. That's just the way it is.
I saw the evidence too, let me clarify my fantastical view for you.
If Grosskreutz wanted to shoot Rittenhouse he had the power and opportunity to do that.
I believe Grosskruetz wanted to disarm Rittenhouse and that is why he lunged at him. If he was a threat and wanted to kill Rittenhouse he
would have done that.
If you have a gun pointed at someone you don't need to lunge at them.
You simply pull the trigger.
It's not nonsense. There is no need to use deadly force in many
cases when it is used.
We were talking self-defence. Don't be obtuse.
All this action and adventure is Hollywood.
You are repeating what I already said.
So what you are saying is that it is OK because Rittenhouse
didn't kill "good" people, he only killed "bad" people?
Don't twist what I said into something else. It was in direct response
to "shooter/killer" and I said people like you take every opportunity
you can to call Rittenhouse a "shooter/killer" but fail to apply appropriate labels to his attackers. Why is that Al? Don't answer,
we all know why.
Were they? All of the people there were rioting/looting? Or maybe
it was just Rittenhouses victims?
Well, as has been said many times, if you'd watched the trial or any
of the news coverage that wasn't CNN/CBC/MSNBC you'd know it was a
riot full of rioters.
Rittenhouse killed two people. Did those people light a dumpster
on fire and send it towards a gas station?
Yup. Rosenbaum. That was in the trial. You know. The thing you admit
you don't know much about but still have an opinion on lol.
I don't think Rittenhouse is old enough to know what it means to
protect property and how to do it.
Ludicrous statement. He already did protect property.
He is a young man who was put in a bad situation and it turned
out badly for him and his victims.
"his victims". Weasel words. But as they get older, Rosenbaum's five young male rape victims might rest a little easier.
Kyle Rittenhouse is the shooter/killer in this case. That's just
the way it is.
Nope. Jury says otherwise. Yes he shot and killed two men.
but "shooter" is a term for someone who is criminally firing a gun at people and "killer" is another word for murderer. So no, that is not
the way it is.
And then you simply repeat what you wrote previously where you
fantasize that Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse's head from about 3 feet after just prior putting his hands up but did not intent
to shoot him. Well, I don't buy that and you don't buy that. Nobody
buy's that. I don't even think you had a straight face when you typed
it.
If Grosskreutz wanted to shoot Rittenhouse he had the power and
opportunity to do that.
Because you didn't watch the trial. Have you even watched his
testimony yet? Or did you just watch his interview on CNN after his testimony? Yes, Gauge Grosskruetz. Hero. lol
If you have a gun pointed at someone you don't need to lunge at
them. You simply pull the trigger.
More display of your lack of knowledge of the trial. He didn't get the opportunity to point his gun at Rittenhouse until AFTER he approached
with his hands up. You see Rittenhouse was on the ground after being
hit on the head by drop-kick man and then smacked in the head by skateboard dude (Huber). Grosskruetz had caught up by this time,
pulled his gun from the small of his back, Rittenhouse saw him, Grosskruetz raised both hands up in the air, Rittenhouse didn't shoot
and looks around him, Grosskreutz brings his gone down, closes the gap
and aims at Rittenhouse's head. Rittenhouse reacts and beats him to
the punch. Clear cut case of self-defence. You can say "I don't
think" or "I believe" all you want. This testimony was the moment the prosecution lost. The epic facepalm moment plastered all over the news (well, not on the CBC Alan).
But sure, Rittenhouse is a "shooter/killer".
On 11-29-21 14:40, Alan Ianson <=-
spoke to Doug Mccomber about Liberty & Justice for All <=-
When you aim a firearm at someone it is because you are prepared to
use lethal force. There is no other reason to do so.
Part of gun training is aiming your weapon. This is an important
detail. If you can't aim your weapon you will never hit your target. A person trained to use a gun can aim it and use deadly force when
needed.
Grosskreutz had a gun, pointed it at Rittenhouse but never fired a shot. That is why I say Grosskreutz was not a threat. In spite of everything that happened Grosskreutz never discharged his weapon.
Part of gun training is aiming your weapon. This is an important
detail. If you can't aim your weapon you will never hit your
target. A person trained to use a gun can aim it and use deadly
force when needed.
The idea of shooting a gun or knife out of an attacker's hand is crazy
BS. The idea of aiming to hit an arm or a leg is ineffective. Even
if your aim is good enough in a fluid situation, all you will do is
slow the attacker down, but he will still use his weapon to kill you.
Wait a minute.
Per your previous posts, Rittenhouse was a threat BECAUSE he had a
gun. He was a threat before he ever shot anyone.
But Grosskreutz was not a threat because, even though he had a gun and
was displaying it, never got a chance to fire it or shoot anyone.
Oh, you think people needed to be shot and killed?
Kyle had to give a public demonstration as to what his gun
was capable of doing to real people. He succeeded.
We all know what guns are capable of, no demonstrations are needed.
The jury was also not allowed to hear evidence that Kyle wanted
to shoot rioters/looters but here in the real world we know these
facts.
No they are NOT fact's, they are lies.
What are not facts or lies?
Kyle may have had good intentions when he went to Kenosha but it didn't turn out well for him or his victims.
Per your previous posts, Rittenhouse was a threat BECAUSE he had a
gun. He was a threat before he ever shot anyone.
Rittenhouse was a threat when he started shooting people.
But Grosskreutz was not a threat because, even though he had a gun and was displaying it, never got a chance to fire it or shoot anyone.
Grosskreutz was not a threat to anyone. He was not parading around with an AR-15 in the way Rittenhouse was. He had opportunity to use his gun if he wanted too, but he didn't. Rittenhouse did. Several times.
Part of gun training is aiming your weapon. This is an important
detail. If you can't aim your weapon you will never hit your target. A person trained to use a gun can aim it and use deadly force when needed.
The idea of shooting a gun or knife out of an attacker's hand is crazy
BS. The idea of aiming to hit an arm or a leg is ineffective. Even if
your aim is good enough in a fluid situation, all you will do is slow
the attacker down, but he will still use his weapon to kill you.
The problem is Mayors in a lot of democratically controlled cities le the rioters get completely out of control BEFORE the allow the police in to do there job OR call in the National Guard. By then it is to late and there is millions of dollars of damage to businesses and property. So businesses and citizens are left on there own to protect there property and businesses.
Mayors have tough choices to make in these situations.
Do you think vigilante justice is a good answer?
What are not facts or lies?
That Kyle wanted to shoot rioters/looters. The jury didn't hear it
because it is a LIE.
Kyle may have had good intentions when he went to Kenosha but it
didn't turn out well for him or his victims.
What Victims?
He defended himself from those who were attacking him. They are not victims they were criminals who never ended up in court on trial.
Rittenhouse was a threat when he started shooting people.
Before you said he was a threat because he had a gun, and that the
people who reacted to him, including the ones he ultimately shot,
reacted in such a way because he had a gun and was therefore a threat.
But then you go back to parading around with an AR-15 making him a
threat.
Choose a lane and stay in it.
Give me a effin break. The Governor of Wisconsin Tony Evers could and should have called in the National guard after the first night of
rioting. So using your logic if Evers HAD called in the guard Kyle Rittenhouse would not have been there and we wouldn't be talking about this.... But the reality is the Progresive left mayors don't want the leftist rioters mad at them so the let them run amok burning and destroying there cities. Have you seen riots in cities where there are Republican mayors?
Do you think vigilante justice is a good answer?
When regular justice fails to do there duty to protect and serve, yes.
Grosskreutz had a gun, pointed it at Rittenhouse but never fired a shot.
That
is why I say Grosskreutz was not a threat. In spite of everything that
happened Grosskreutz never discharged his weapon.
Wait a minute.
Per your previous posts, Rittenhouse was a threat BECAUSE he had a gun.
He was a threat before he ever shot anyone.
But Grosskreutz was not a threat because, even though he had a gun and was displaying it, never got a chance to fire it or shoot anyone.
There is no sense there.
Part of gun training is aiming your weapon. This is an important
detail. If you can't aim your weapon you will never hit your
target. A person trained to use a gun can aim it and use deadly
force when needed.
The idea of shooting a gun or knife out of an attacker's hand is crazy
BS. The idea of aiming to hit an arm or a leg is ineffective. Even
if your aim is good enough in a fluid situation, all you will do is
slow the attacker down, but he will still use his weapon to kill you.
I am not suggesting shooting a gun or knife out of someones hands. I certainly don't have those kinds of skills with a gun.
I am suggesting that lethal/deadly force is not always needed to stop a threat.
If faced with an threat/attacker with a gun then lethal/deadly force is justified.
I was watching a chase in California about a week ago. The police were in pursuit of a car for speeding. The car took off and threw a gun and other items out the window. The police hit the car and spun it out of control and
disabled it. The driver was complaint at first, got on the ground and then bolted.
The police (at least three officers) never discharged their weapons and manged to get their wanted man in custody after a short struggle. I think they would have been justified in using their guns but they never did because they didn't need too.
I have to call these good and well trained police officers.
Lee Lofaso wrote to ALL <=-
Yep. Kyle Rittenhouse was, and remains, a threat to himself and
to others.
Before and after he shot a few people dead. Which is why
he needs to be locked up. Either in a mental institution for the criminally insane, or incarcerated in a penal institution for the
crimes he has committed. Unfortunately, he cannot be tried again
for the same crimes, so the only option that remains is the nuthouse.
You are playing with words.
Rittenhouse was a threat. That threat proved to be real in a short period of time.
That Kyle wanted to shoot rioters/looters. The jury didn't hear it because it is a LIE.
It is not a lie. Kyle said what he said. A short time later Kyle did what he said he wanted to do.
He defended himself from those who were attacking him. They are not victims they were criminals who never ended up in court on trial.
Of course not, they are dead (two of them). They will not be able to speak in court.
Rittenhouse was a threat. That threat proved to be real in a short
period of time.
You said before Rittenhouse was a threat because he had a gun, while
the other fellow was never a threat because, although he had a gun and pointed it at someone, he never got a chance to fire it.
I think it is more along the lines of "Rittenhouse is probably someone whose politics you probably don't agree with + he had a gun = threat," while the "other guy (who has a criminal record!) had a gun but also probably leans more left like you do = not a threat until he shoots someone."
It is not a lie. Kyle said what he said. A short time later Kyle did
what he said he wanted to do.
LINK? Otherwise, it is more rubbish.
Of course not, they are dead (two of them). They will not be able to
speak in court.
And the third one that lived spoke and said that Kyle didn't point his weapon at him until he pointed his own gun at Kyle.
On 11-30-21 20:31, Alan Ianson <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Liberty & Justice fo <=-
I am suggesting that lethal/deadly force is not always needed to stop
a threat.
If faced with an threat/attacker with a gun then lethal/deadly force
is justified.
I was watching a chase in California about a week ago. The police were
in pursuit of a car for speeding. The car took off and threw a gun and other items out the window. The police hit the car and spun it out of control and disabled it. The driver was complaint at first, got on the ground and then bolted.
The police (at least three officers) never discharged their
weapons and manged
to get their wanted man in custody after a short struggle.
I think
they would have been justified in using their guns but they never did because they didn't
need too.
I have to call these good and well trained police officers.
I am suggesting that lethal/deadly force is not always needed to stop
a threat.
If faced with an threat/attacker with a gun then lethal/deadly force
is justified.
How about a knife at close range? Or other sorts of lethal weapons.
I was watching a chase in California about a week ago. The police were
in pursuit of a car for speeding. The car took off and threw a gun and
other items out the window. The police hit the car and spun it out of
control and disabled it. The driver was complaint at first, got on the
ground and then bolted.
The police (at least three officers) never discharged theirstruggle.
weapons and manged to get their wanted man in custody after a AIshort
Good for them. That is as it should be.
I think
they would have been justified in using their guns but they never did
because they didn't
need too.
I don't think that police should ever be allowed to using deadly force when an unarmed person is running away. They would not be a threat to
the officers or any one else.
I have to call these good and well trained police officers.
Agreed. Unfortunately we have seen a similar case in recent history
where the police did not exercise such restraint. They shot and killed
a person who was fleeing, and for whom they knew exactly where his home address was.
It is not a lie. Kyle said what he said. A short time later Kyle did
what he said he wanted to do.
What Victims?His dead targets and one maimed.
He defended himself from those who were attacking him. They are not victims they were criminals who never ended up in court on trial.
Of course not, they are dead (two of them). They will not be able to
speak in court.
Give me a effin break. The Governor of Wisconsin Tony Evers could and should have called in the National guard after the first night of rioting. So using your logic if Evers HAD called in the guard Kyle Rittenhouse would not have been there and we wouldn't be talking abou this.... But the reality is the Progresive left mayors don't want the leftist rioters mad at them so the let them run amok burning and destroying there cities. Have you seen riots in cities where there ar Republican mayors?
If your issue is what the governor did or didn't do you can take that up with the governor. That has nothing to do with Kyle Rittenhouse's
actions that day.
I'll agree that the justice system isn't perfect but I don't think vigilante justice is better.
It is not a lie. Kyle said what he said. A short time later Kyle
did what he said he wanted to do.
OK so show us where/when Kyle said this... Or is it just you thinking
he said this.
Of course not, they are dead (two of them). They will not be able
to speak in court.
So they are not victims.... Of course you and everyone on the left
likes to make everyone a victim....
Hello Mike,
It is not a lie. Kyle said what he said. A short time later Kyle did
what he said he wanted to do.
LINK? Otherwise, it is more rubbish.
I'm surprised you missed this detail but here is one youtube video.
https://youtu.be/se9ByJMPjcc
So they are not victims.... Of course you and everyone on the left
likes to make everyone a victim....
They are victims. Gunshot victims. Kyle Rittenhouse's gunshots.
https://youtu.be/se9ByJMPjcc
So your proof that he went to Kenosha to shoot people is a video from
an unrelated incident where we do not even see Kyle but only hear
someone speaking that is supposed to be him.
No wonder it got thrown out.
comprehenI followed enough of the trial and learned enough facts to know
and understand what transpired. It is others who failed to
what happened and why.
It wouldn't of mattered how much you watched of the trial.
The issue with the way you and others on the left process information. There always has to a victim.
Right and I been here also for a number of years, and unlike you I have my ownRight...Lee knows best (I've been on and off FidoNet long enough over
years to know this).
node within fidonet.
Out of arguments already? No surprise there.
I know nothing of Doug, but something tells he may not be done with you quite yet, but I would not be at all surprised if he does not converse with
you any longer, what would be the point.
Talking to people on the left is a complete waste of time.
Still out of arguments? No surprise there. But hey. Keep trying.
It's fun living rent free inside your head.
and I in yours Lee, and believe me, it will only make you smarter.
Kyle Rittenhouse shot two people dead, critically injuring one person,
and shooting another person in the arm. Four shots fired, four persons
hit. No police around to stop him.
No Police to stop Angry Black Man from tearing everything within his sight,
either.
Rittenhouse is free man
to spite what you people on the left think about it.
He not only won his case, but with his win, came the disastrous failure of the lefty nutjobs, as well most of all media.
How does it feel to be so sure of yourself and have it go the other way.
OK so show us where/when Kyle said this... Or is it just you thinking he said this.
https://youtu.be/se9ByJMPjcc
They are victims. Gunshot victims. Kyle Rittenhouse's gunshots.
It is about Kyle's state of mind and his own words.
No wonder it got thrown out.
What got thrown out?
https://youtu.be/se9ByJMPjcc
Is it Kyle Rittenhouse?
The judge wouldn't allow it to be admitted to court so it is suspect
at best.
It was more of the media trying to convict him publicly instead of
letting all the facts come out.
Regardless this was in reference to looters, and he didn't shoot any looters when the video was made.
They are victims. Gunshot victims. Kyle Rittenhouse's gunshots.
No they are casualties of there actions, if they had NOT attacked Kyle they would be alive today. Of course if you where in the same
situation I am sure you would have just taken a beating or died to
protect there lives...
So I will end this here, you do not like anyone defending themselves
you comments have shown that.
You believe in convicting someone in the court of public opinion as
long as it follows your ideology.
Besides you don't even live in the USA so who are you to tell us about
how our country should be ran...
It is about Kyle's state of mind and his own words.
From an unrelated incident.
What got thrown out?
You said they were not allowed to hear it, which means it got thrown
out. Duh.
The judge wouldn't allow it to be admitted to court so it is suspect
at best.
There is nothing suspect about it, he spoke plainly.
so if self defense from a rioting mob is not the time or place for self defense then what would be the time and place for a gun?
This conversation began with Rittenhouse. He killed people in a Riot to defend himself when he was attacked
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 719 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 167:48:11 |
| Calls: | 9,281 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (11,384K bytes) |
| Messages: | 467,394 |