Rittenhouse trial is being set up for unrest

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: game over man I also think the cops were careless firing, I really have no sympathy for him,

These thoughts don't line up, but whatever...

Cops respond to the same crimes by white people much differently.

I agree that happens, but In the exact same circumstances, I don't think the white guy get's to drive away either. I don't see this as anything racist. In fact, Blake was taking advantage of the situation, thinking he was just going to bounce, because the turmoil going on over Floyd. I think the cops were careless because they may of struck a child, that has nothing to do with my thoughts on Blake forcing bad things to happen to him..why not just comply?

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

The rioters and looters openly went looking for a fight. Rittenhouse went looking to defend others and their property using open carry as a hopeful deterrent.

It worked until it didn't, and it came to a head. At that point it was kill or be killed which is quintessential self- defense.

They'll probably crucify Rittenhouse.

Heard a NPR report today. Listening to the broadcast you might think Rittenhouse, endorsed by law enforcement, was out looking to shoot someone; and that he found his victims as they came past him while peacefully protesting.

And now Rittenhouse who likes to hunt black people, is being supported by the conservative GOP. And that the judge on the case has made some controversial decisions allowing footage of Police thanking Rittenhouse for being there the day of the incident; and for allowing the peaceful protesters to be called rioters.

I don't know if Rittenhouse is guilty; thats for a jury to decide. But I do know that NPR and most traditional news outlets are being very one sided in their news coverage.

As normal journalists would rather make the news than simply report on it.

a reply to: vonclod

I'm not interested in going back in time what's done is done and Jacob Blake can only take civil action now. Attorney Crump and Shaun King were constantly posting examples of white people commiting the same crime and not being shot. This racism is deep rooted that's why police drove by Kyle and didn't perceive him as a threat, because white middle class people have a racial stereotype of being Ned Flanders mixed with Mr. Rogers.

Jury has been selected, nearly all white, no one black, 11 women and 9 men. I predict Kyle will be let go but everyone with a brain knows he's guilty of all the charges. I don't trust the jury given the political and cultural landscape of Kenosha.

In regards to this thread, Chicago Tribune is reporting there was a very small gathering of people outside the courthouse today, supporters of the deceased and small amount of Rittenhouse supporters. Based on that alone I don't think Kenosha is going to explode again in chaos when Kyle is let go.

The large protests last year had a lot to do with covid and people losing their job and how brutally violent and disturbing the clip of George Floyd, RIP, was... that really got people's emotions up. Protests have kind of lost their steam since then.

We'll see what happens, but I don't think the streets will ignite.

The Rev. Jonathan Barker leads Grace Lutheran Church in Kenosha's Uptown Neighborhood, which was nearly destroyed during the Blake protests. He has been warned to stay away from the courthouse during the trial because it could become a hub of white nationalism.

Barker says that if Rittenhouse isn't convicted, it will set a dangerous precedent for people's rights to free speech and assembly.

"I have deep concerns about how this will go, and I've been disappointed," Barker said. "I am ready for anything. But I want to be a person of hope as a Christian and as a pastor."

Link

This man is scared of hubs of white nationalism after his church was nearly destroyed by POC as they peacefuly protested.

He is worried that the rights of these peaceful protesters to assembly in order to nearly destroy his church will be at risk if Rittenhouse is not convicted.

originally posted by: dandandat2

The Rev. Jonathan Barker leads Grace Lutheran Church in Kenosha's Uptown Neighborhood, which was nearly destroyed during the Blake protests. He has been warned to stay away from the courthouse during the trial because it could become a hub of white nationalism.

Barker says that if Rittenhouse isn't convicted, it will set a dangerous precedent for people's rights to free speech and assembly.

"I have deep concerns about how this will go, and I've been disappointed," Barker said. "I am ready for anything. But I want to be a person of hope as a Christian and as a pastor."

Link

This man is scared of hubs of white nationalism after his church was nearly destroyed by POC as they peacefuly protested.

He is worried that the rights of these peaceful protesters to assembly in order to nearly destroy his church will be at risk if Rittenhouse is not convicted.

The church was a safe place to get food and other items during the last year's protest and was considered a safe place. The Uptown neighborhood did see a lot of destruction but not the church itself. When Biden visited Kenosha he went to this church.

Link

I wonder which white supremacists warned him?

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
a reply to: Taupin Desciple

The rioters and looters openly went looking for a fight. Rittenhouse went looking to defend others and their property using open carry as a hopeful deterrent.

It worked until it didn't, and it came to a head. At that point it was kill or be killed which is quintessential self- defense.

They'll probably crucify Rittenhouse.

I honestly think all these young men were looking for a fight, and they got it…

a reply to: panoz77

He kinda travelled all the way to that city from out of state IIRC..

Armed with an AR-15.. as a minor..

To "protect businesses" he had no affiliation with or feelings for. It wasn't like it was his town or even close to where he lived. This is what he meant by looking for a fight. It will be extremely difficult to defend him for these reasons.

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
a reply to: Taupin Desciple

The rioters and looters openly went looking for a fight. Rittenhouse went looking to defend others and their property using open carry as a hopeful deterrent.

It worked until it didn't, and it came to a head. At that point it was kill or be killed which is quintessential self- defense.

They'll probably crucify Rittenhouse.

Why would you travel so far to defend businesses that aren't paying you for your service? It's not like he lived there, frequented the businesses, knew anyone who worked there.

I'm going to travel out of state, armed with a military rifle, to dissuade potential looters from looting stuff that has no bearing on me whatsoever? Let's play make believe and say he lived there and knew the business owners, maybe grew up going to that store or a long-time customer. Then he might have a defense.

One of the guys he shot after running away from a mob trying to get him for killing an unarmed guy did have a gun I think I read. I don't know if it was visible or concealed but he might get self defense on some of it, not the initial killing.

I get why so many are rooting for him, he killed people with opposing political views to yours but.. I don't see him getting out of this.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I don't think he has a prayer of staying out of prison. News is reporting that he will be tried as being a vigilante that placed himself in a violent position purposely when he killed, therefore he is responsible for their deaths. Or was it just 1 person he killed.

It's near 100% certain that, if you look for trouble long enough, it will find you. It did with him.
Do I think he should go to prison? Yes. Should have kept his stupid ass at home.

Also, what's worth more, the life of a potential looter during civil disobedience who's political beliefs are opposed to yours or some property and merchandise that wasn't yours that have you have no connection to?

Except, let the question be answered by a Judge that doesn't share the potential looters political beliefs or yours looking at it from the perspective of the law.

Could it be that someone choosing to defend merchandise and property that they have no affiliation or connection to from looters is doing so for an opportunity to potentially shoot people that they hate for a justifiable reason?

I mean, there's more of a motive than a generic defense of property if the property has absolutely nothing to do with you and you travelled a length of your own accord without being asked or hired to do so.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: putnam6

Kyle threatened all those protestors first amendment rights with an AR-15...while militia people, police and national guard were controlling things from a safe distance, observing an active protest. Kyle should have listened to his superiors instead of taking the law into his own hands. Which Kyle doesn't know the law, he broke the law numerous times.

Lots of people were breaking laws that night, Kyle was threatened repeatedly earlier and did nothing, it wasn't until he was alone that he was chased off and put into a corner. the ex-con literally chased him across a used car parking lot finally cornering him and even the other protester on the scene said Kyle was threatened again. All of this was covered extensively here contemporaneously with the actual event.

Regardless he will probably be convicted which says more about today's climate than the actual interpretation of the law.

originally posted by: didntasktobeborned

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: didntasktobeborned

don't group everybody together.

Actually that's what Im trying to avoid.
From what I'm starting to understand is that the militia that the constitution refers to are civilians who are "called up" to aid existing military in case of emergency. So the National Guard pretty much takes care of that , and then some.

When something happens to enrage all the police and half the military, do these homegrown militia think they can handle that, and the US government will call them up to save the day? Thats funny. They'll bring in the UN.

first a militia is exactly what you stated "civilians who are "called up" to aid existing military in case of emergency".

key word CITIZENS.

the national guard while sounds nice are "citizen soldiers" are more accurately PART TIME soldiers.
yes they can be called up by the governor of their state and "technically" under his/her control.
but the TRUTH is they are military trained and DIRECTLY answer to them.
if there is a conflict between what the governor wants and the federal government wants, the federal government WINS and the state cant say boo about it.

where as a "militia" is DIRECTLY under the states (or county) and lent to the military...but they can say NO to sending them if they so choose.

i wont get into the "militia" groups since that is another issue entirely.

now forgive me but i feel the need to remind people that the second amendment has COMMAS in it that list MULTIPLE issues about the second amendment.
just like the first has different types of freedoms (speech, assembly , religion, ect) that fall under the overall first amendment the second IS THE SAME

The right to "bear arms" IS NOT just for a state run militia nor a "national guard"

scrounger

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Sookiechacha

"what if Kyle Rittenhouse was black"? Would he still be hailed as a hero?

Yes, those who understand self defense would still hail him as a hero.

Those who support rioters, arsonists, and looters would still consider him a murderer.

Okay, but if he walks that's what will get people upset and ready for unrest. They'll claim a black guy in the same situation wouldn't walk. That's where the "black trauma" comes into the mix, in my opinion.

So...theyll imagine a scenario that gives them a percieved justification?

This is why Rittenhouse needs to walk. The mob becomes a mob because of their imaginations.

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: dandandat2

The Rev. Jonathan Barker leads Grace Lutheran Church in Kenosha's Uptown Neighborhood, which was nearly destroyed during the Blake protests. He has been warned to stay away from the courthouse during the trial because it could become a hub of white nationalism.

Barker says that if Rittenhouse isn't convicted, it will set a dangerous precedent for people's rights to free speech and assembly.

"I have deep concerns about how this will go, and I've been disappointed," Barker said. "I am ready for anything. But I want to be a person of hope as a Christian and as a pastor."

Link

This man is scared of hubs of white nationalism after his church was nearly destroyed by POC as they peacefuly protested.

He is worried that the rights of these peaceful protesters to assembly in order to nearly destroy his church will be at risk if Rittenhouse is not convicted.

The church was a safe place to get food and other items during the last year's protest and was considered a safe place. The Uptown neighborhood did see a lot of destruction but not the church itself. When Biden visited Kenosha he went to this church.

Link

I wonder which white supremacists warned him?

I see, thanks for the clarification. It was his whole neighborhood that was nearly destroyed by peaceful protesters and this man wants to see another man convicted because he fears anything else may help curtail the freedom to assemble and destroy neighborhoods.

Despite already being a victim of domestic terrorism at the hands of one group. He's fearful of the "possibility" that another group of people might show up at a court house.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Sookiechacha

"what if Kyle Rittenhouse was black"? Would he still be hailed as a hero?

Yes, those who understand self defense would still hail him as a hero.

Those who support rioters, arsonists, and looters would still consider him a murderer.

Okay, but if he walks that's what will get people upset and ready for unrest. They'll claim a black guy in the same situation wouldn't walk. That's where the "black trauma" comes into the mix, in my opinion.

So...theyll imagine a scenario that gives them a percieved justification?

This is why Rittenhouse needs to walk. The mob becomes a mob because of their imaginations.

Okay. What do you think the "black trauma" , cited in OP, is all about then? Or, do you think "black trauma" is a non-existent imaginary machination?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: LSU2018

it's clear as day that he fired in self defense.

Nothing is self defence if you are walking around with a loaded rifle and an air of bravado.

Only a fool would think otherwise.

Back in the Rodney King riots in LA, Korean shop owners paced around on their rooftops with shotguns locked and loaded, and their neighborhoods werent ransacked. Im sure some may have had ‘an air of bravado’. Were they being foolish?

Why do we not call the dead pedo arsonists ‘fools’?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
But guilty on possessing a weapon while underage.

I'd be surprised if he doesn't walk away with at least misdemeanor (which possessing while underage is there I believe).

I doubt that. The law is vague on the possession of a weapon bit. Ownership is clearly defined, but, he didn't own the weapon.

a reply to: game over man

Wrong.

The National Guard is the State's component of the military. It is controlled by State Governors.

The "Militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45.

It is NOT illegal to do "backyard" military training, as long as local laws on the use of weapons is followed.

originally posted by: FryingSquirrel

Armed with an AR-15.. as a minor..

Interesting. "as a minor". Why is he being charged as an adult?