• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

False narrative on the men Rittenhouse shot. So why the bravado about armed militia types

Sand Castle said:
Unfortunately, the Judge went far beyond far and equal. He labeled all three men as looters, property destroyers; all three were not, one of them possibly.

The three victims were painted as completely violent thugs which was embelishing.

With this narrative and with no ability to tell his side of the story, Rosenbaum's actions had to be of a crazed violent killer.

Or was Rosenbaum like the other three trying to get that dangerous weapon out of a boy that's friends with the violent proud boys. A boy who had just recently sucker punched a girl in the head.
Click to expand...

In general the defense is allowed to make these arguments. The prosecution is not allowed to introduce prejudicial evidence that is not relevant to the case at hand.

You can look it up if you like.

 
Sand Castle said:
Nice answer but this thread is about the narrative before, during and now after the debacle in Kenosha
Click to expand...
In the future, such protests should NOT be allowed to take place on public property, but only on private property owned by one or more of the protesters OR by prior request at a designated public area with acceptance of liability for costs of any damages/clean up.
 
Individual said:
In the future, such protests should NOT be allowed to take place on public property, but only on private property owned by one or more of the protesters OR by prior request at a designated public area with acceptance of liability for costs of any damages/clean up.
Click to expand...
Your refering to January 6th, correct?
 
Sand Castle said:
What do you think? With this verdict, the DC police when fearing for their life, should have massacred the violent protesters.

Obviously, right?
Click to expand...

If only you had your story straight.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Who among those shot (or shot at) by KR did not assault and/or batter KR within seconds of being shot? Trying to include committing assault and/or battery as being within “protestors rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress in grievances” is simply ridiculous.

Needing to pose (create?) a hypothetical example using a fictitious ”identical” case where the shooter (claiming self-defense) was black seems to indicate that there was no real (either identical or very similar) case (involving a black shooter) available to be offered as an example.
Click to expand...
I'm saying KR brought those attacks on himself by playing vigilante and trying to intimidate people exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Vigilantism has long been a tool of white supremacists. Care to comment on the outcomes of these two events?
1637464810499.webp1637464840990.webp
 
Sand Castle said:
The Rittenhouse verdict appears to been decided on evidence, presentation of each sides case, where one could surmise each incident that night was a self defense shooting.

I personally feel the Rosenbaum shooting could be looked at from murder to self defense. And that has been discussed adnauseum here.

The other two shootings can fairly easily be determined to be self defense.

The overall problem with many Rittenhouse supporters reaction before, during and after the verdict, is the narrative that Rittenhouse was in Kenosha to protect from looters and destruction of property. And some connection to the men shot.

Evidence doesn't seem to show the persons Rittenhouse encountered were doing any of that.

And many that place guilt on the three victims as actual looters and property destroyers.

Evidence clearly demonstrated Rosenbaum was none of this.

Yet here many including politicians referencing Kyle's actions as a call to stop looters.

The shooting, motivation for the shooting, had nothing to do with actual looting.

Infact why were militia persons like Rittenhouse parading around protesters that were exercising his or her first amendment rights?

As wingnut politician, including Trump shout out a call to arms, they are also calling out a call to arms for protesters.

I guess some support the wild, wild west when it comes to protest events.

Although, I'm wondering if these same persons that believe in Rittenhouse, would have supported a massacre in DC on January 6th.

After all DC police absolutely feared for their lives.
Click to expand...
Rosenbaum was literally in the act of arson. What were you watching?
 
mrjurrs said:
I'm saying KR brought those attacks on himself by playing vigilante and trying to intimidate people exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Vigilantism has long been a tool of white supremacists. Care to comment on the outcomes of these two events?
Click to expand...
I didn't know arson was a 1A right.
 
Sand Castle said:
The Rittenhouse verdict appears to been decided on evidence, presentation of each sides case, where one could surmise each incident that night was a self defense shooting.

I personally feel the Rosenbaum shooting could be looked at from murder to self defense. And that has been discussed adnauseum here.

The other two shootings can fairly easily be determined to be self defense.

The overall problem with many Rittenhouse supporters reaction before, during and after the verdict, is the narrative that Rittenhouse was in Kenosha to protect from looters and destruction of property. And some connection to the men shot.

Evidence doesn't seem to show the persons Rittenhouse encountered were doing any of that.

And many that place guilt on the three victims as actual looters and property destroyers.

Evidence clearly demonstrated Rosenbaum was none of this.

Yet here many including politicians referencing Kyle's actions as a call to stop looters.

The shooting, motivation for the shooting, had nothing to do with actual looting.

Infact why were militia persons like Rittenhouse parading around protesters that were exercising his or her first amendment rights?

As wingnut politician, including Trump shout out a call to arms, they are also calling out a call to arms for protesters.

I guess some support the wild, wild west when it comes to protest events.

Although, I'm wondering if these same persons that believe in Rittenhouse, would have supported a massacre in DC on January 6th.

After all DC police absolutely feared for their lives.
Click to expand...

By the way, re the Rittenhouse defense:
All those women currently in prison for shooting their abusers, would like a word.
 
Sand Castle said:
What do you think? With this verdict, the DC police when fearing for their life, should have massacred the violent protesters.

Obviously, right?
Click to expand...
DC police are police, so they have their own set of criteria.
What this judgment actually implies is that armed COUNTER-protesters should have massacred the insurrectionists the moment they
began rushing the Capitol with their clubs, poles, knives, stun guns, tasers and yes, GUNS.
Then it just boils down to which judge they get, because clearly if they get Kyle's judge, they won't get to use the Rittenhouse defense or even refer to themselves as 'victims'.
 
Goshin said:
A shot thru the back always plays poorly, but people don't realize that these things are dynamic situations. You don't fire once and hope that did the job; there's a reason why police are trained to keep shooting until the threat is ended. A string of four shots might take only a second or two, and in the process the subject may turn, fall or whatever. Also "down" isn't always "out of the fight".
Click to expand...
He's not a police officer
 
Individual said:
In the future, such protests should NOT be allowed to take place on public property, but only on private property owned by one or more of the protesters OR by prior request at a designated public area with acceptance of liability for costs of any damages/clean up.
Click to expand...
That's not what the Constitution says
 
mrjurrs said:
So if he didn't see any of them doing that, why does his 2nd amendment rights reign over the protestors 1st amendment rights.

This horrible verdict opens the path for anyone from anywhere to show up at any protest carrying weapons (creating a sense of intimidation) and dampening the protestors rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress in grievances.

Think about this honestly. If KR were a black teenager carrying an AR-15 in Kenosha that night, would this discussion take place? From walking past LOE with his weapon, to the judge's odd series of actions, to the jury outcome, would the results have been the same?
Click to expand...
He wouldn't have made it past the cops alive or at least injured and under arrest. White privilege on steroids from the beginning to the end with the judge putting an exclamation point on it.
 
Sand Castle said:
What do you think? With this verdict, the DC police when fearing for their life, should have massacred the violent protesters.

Obviously, right?
Click to expand...
Yup. And all the congressional personal should have been carrying and destroyed the protestors. The whole thing would have lasted 15 minutes with those trumptards running for the hills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom