• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are there people on the left with enough honesty to acknowledge Rittenhouse acted in self defense?

D

diz

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
1,237
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.

There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.

I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.

www.newsweek.com

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'

The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
 
diz said:
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.

There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.

I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.

www.newsweek.com

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'

The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
Click to expand...

The degree to which the prosecutors are willing to lie in order to salvage their shit show of a witch hunt is more than mildly astonishing.
 
diz said:
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.

There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.

I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.

www.newsweek.com

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'

The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
Click to expand...
Tulsa gabbard is a dino.
 
Tlrmln said:
The degree to which the prosecutors are willing to lie in order to salvage their shit show of a witch hunt is more than mildly astonishing.
Click to expand...
Hes gonna walk, but he shouldn't.

Hes not guilty of murder either. Hes guilty of negligent homicide and attempted negligent homicide. In his own words, he took the weapon to defend himself from the crowds he knew were violent in days before. I am well aware of the fact that he was under no obligation to stay at the Car Source he was supposed to be protecting, but one has to ask this question....are we supposed to believe he wasn't looking for trouble when he left that location to go and put himself in the middle of that same crowd he stated he was worried about before he even got there?

Also......why are we not talking about the shit job of parenting that allowed this whole shitshow to happen in the first place. Even if you want to claim Kyle was somehow justified, his mother is most definitely responsible for those deaths, as she allowed her child to get involved in a riot carrying a weapon.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Hes gonna walk, but he shouldn't.

Hes not guilty of murder either. Hes guilty of negligent homicide and attempted negligent homicide. In his own words, he took the weapon to defend himself from the crowds he knew were violent in days before. I am well aware of the fact that he was under no obligation to stay at the Car Source he was supposed to be protecting, but one has to ask this question....are we supposed to believe he wasn't looking for trouble when he left that location to go and put himself in the middle of that same crowd he stated he was worried about before he even got there?
Click to expand...

You can't be guilty of negligent anything by doing things you have the legal right to do under the circumstances. He went to the 63rd St. Car Source lot because he thought people were burning cars, and maybe he could put out the fires. If the people there decided to attack him, that's on them.

bullseyelqcs said:
Also......why are we not talking about the shit job of parenting that allowed this whole shitshow to happen in the first place. Even if you want to claim Kyle was somehow justified, his mother is most definitely responsible for those deaths, as she allowed her child to get involved in a riot carrying a weapon.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to touch this nonsense. KR and his mother are two different people.
 
diz said:
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.

There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.

I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.

www.newsweek.com

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'

The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it’s not self defense when you pick a fight and someone takes you up on it.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Hes gonna walk, but he shouldn't.

Hes not guilty of murder either. Hes guilty of negligent homicide and attempted negligent homicide. In his own words, he took the weapon to defend himself from the crowds he knew were violent in days before. I am well aware of the fact that he was under no obligation to stay at the Car Source he was supposed to be protecting, but one has to ask this question....are we supposed to believe he wasn't looking for trouble when he left that location to go and put himself in the middle of that same crowd he stated he was worried about before he even got there?

Also......why are we not talking about the shit job of parenting that allowed this whole shitshow to happen in the first place. Even if you want to claim Kyle was somehow justified, his mother is most definitely responsible for those deaths, as she allowed her child to get involved in a riot carrying a weapon.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t he have as much right, if not more, to be there as the rioters? Surely we have not descended to the point in our society where rioters have more right to be somewhere than law abiding citizens?
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Hes gonna walk, but he shouldn't.

Hes not guilty of murder either. Hes guilty of negligent homicide and attempted negligent homicide. In his own words, he took the weapon to defend himself from the crowds he knew were violent in days before. I am well aware of the fact that he was under no obligation to stay at the Car Source he was supposed to be protecting, but one has to ask this question....are we supposed to believe he wasn't looking for trouble when he left that location to go and put himself in the middle of that same crowd he stated he was worried about before he even got there?

Also......why are we not talking about the shit job of parenting that allowed this whole shitshow to happen in the first place. Even if you want to claim Kyle was somehow justified, his mother is most definitely responsible for those deaths, as she allowed her child to get involved in a riot carrying a weapon.
Click to expand...

How are those targeted by members of a rioting mob considered to be “involved in a riot”? Should we make getting attacked during a riot into some new criminal act?
 
He will get rich.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Legally it was pretty clearly self defense. What worries me is the amount of people morally encouraging vigilantism.
Click to expand...

Vigilantism is not a good thing. The problem is that if certain elements of our society insist on turning a blind eye to mayhem being inflicted on a community, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone if certain other elements decide that they aren't going to take it anymore. The real question is what they do about it. Burning random property is not acceptable. Defending it, even with questionable means, is at least understandable.

The absurdity of all the name-calling in this case couldn't be more pronounced. We literally have people being accused of being white supremacists, when they went out of their way to defend a business owned by people of color. Now we can discuss whether that was a good idea, or whether they did certain things in the process that were reckless, or whether individual members of the group were out of line, but at a high level it doesn't get much more ridiculous than accusing them of anything other than bad judgment.
 
diz said:
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.

There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.

I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.

www.newsweek.com

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'

The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
Click to expand...
Ana Kasparian, to her credit, admitted as much.
 
Tlrmln said:
Vigilantism is not a good thing. The problem is that if certain elements of our society insist on turning a blind eye to mayhem being inflicted on a community, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone if certain other elements decide that they aren't going to take it anymore. The real question is what they do about it. Burning random property is not acceptable. Defending it, even with questionable means, is at least understandable.

The absurdity of all the name-calling in this case couldn't be more pronounced. We literally have people being accused of being white supremacists, when they went out of their way to defend a business owned by people of color. Now we can discuss whether that was a good idea, or whether they did certain things in the process that were reckless, or whether individual members of the group were out of line, but at a high level it doesn't get much more ridiculous than accusing them of anything other than bad judgment.
Click to expand...

Increasingly, charges of white supremacy are wholly divorced from any connection to skin color.
 
Sorry, he bought an assault rifle illegally, went across state lines to a protest he had no business being at to play cop and protect property no one asked him to protect, got in over his head and killed two people. What part of that should we say was OK?
 
bomberfox said:
Well no. He went there armed knowing there would be trouble.
Click to expand...
Knew there would be trouble? At a mostly peaceful BLM protest!? Really?

I doubt anyone knew that there would be child predators chasing minors down dark streets, wannabe rambos firing warning shots into the air in crowded streets, wannabe John Wick vigilantes attacking people with skateboards and weak little wannabe cowboys waving their pistols around. Who would think that? If they did, everyone would stay home.
 
itstony said:
Sorry, he bought an assault rifle illegally, went across state lines to a protest he had no business being at to play cop and protect property no one asked him to protect, got in over his head and killed two people. What part of that should we say was OK?
Click to expand...
None of it, which is why he will be convicted of the misdemeanor of being a minor with a dangerous weapon in public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom