Kyle Rittenhouse meets with House GOP members

[j brown's body]

"Rittenhouse joined the lawmakers at a gathering at the Conservative Partnership Institute office near the Capitol, a common gathering hub for conservative Republicans. Rittenhouse shared his story and held a question-and-answer session with members of the group.

“It was an honor to have Kyle join the Second Amendment Caucus. He is a powerful example of why we must never give an inch on our Second Amendment rights, and his perseverance and love for our country was an inspiration to the caucus,” Boebert told The Hill in a statement.

...“I’m 19 and just got to speak with leaders of the greatest country on earth! This was an amazing evening where I got to share my story and discuss the importance of the Second Amendment. Even while the radical left continues to sue me and disparage my name, I know these great leaders have my back,” Rittenhouse said in a statement."

Link

Smart. Way to court that elusive youth vote.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

“It was an honor to have Kyle join the Second Amendment Caucus. He is a powerful example of why we must never give an inch on our Second Amendment rights,

Cant give an inch on second amendment rights in order to make sure teenagers everywhere can carry a Mass Murder Machine to a riot and completely unnecessarily shoot a few people?
Yeah. Great messaging there. Just one of many things about the Gun Nut Nayshun that make you go EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW........

 

[RF667799]

Cant give an inch on second amendment rights in order to make sure teenagers everywhere can carry a Mass Murder Machine to a riot and completely unnecessarily shoot a few people?
Yeah. Great messaging there. Just one of many things about the Gun Nut Nayshun that make you go EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW........

A jury decided that it was necessary he shoot the people he shot.

 

[Eurotrash]

Disturbing.

 

[Eurotrash]

A jury decided that it was necessary he shoot the people he shot.

Or, a jury decided he was one of theirs and chose to protect him, no matter what he did.

Or, a jury decided Rittenhouse had the right to play god with people's lives, contrary to laws about murder.

 

[RF667799]

Or, a jury decided he was one of theirs and chose to protect him, no matter what he did.

Or, a jury decided Rittenhouse had the right to play god with people's lives, contrary to laws about murder.

Or the conspiricy forums are in another section.

Or the jury decided on the basis of self defense, which while being homicide, is not murder.

 

[Eurotrash]

Or the conspiricy forums are in another section.

Or the jury decided on the basis of self defense, which while being homicide, is not murder.

OR, the self defense argument is pure bullshit, cooked up by a determined defense team and swallowed whole by a bunch of gun nuts.

 

[RF667799]

OR, the self defense argument is pure bullshit, cooked up by a determined defense team and swallowed whole by a bunch of gun nuts.

Any evidence the jury was composed of "gun nuts"?

 

[Citizen]

A jury decided that it was necessary he shoot the people he shot.

Yet in Baltimore a squeegie kid is being tried as an adult for shooting to dead a white man who was coming after him with a baseball bat. I wonder what the jury will decide and I wonder if he gets off will the GOP celebrate him.

 

[RF667799]

Yet in Baltimore a squeegie kid is being tried as an adult for shooting to dead a white man who was coming after him with a baseball bat. I wonder what the jury will decide and I wonder if he gets off will the GOP celebrate him.

I would, if the jury finds he acted in self defense.

I'm not sure why you think race is an important enough factor to mention, though. Nor am I sure what this undecided case has to do with the decided case in Wisconsin, except as a whataboutism.

 

[Citizen]

I would, if the jury finds he acted in self defense.

I'm not sure why you think race is an important enough factor to mention, though. Nor am I sure what this undecided case has to do with the decided case in Wisconsin, except as a whataboutism.

Well the reason I brought it up is because nobody is celebrating him and everyone is treating him like a criminal

 

[Eurotrash]

I would, if the jury finds he acted in self defense.

I'm not sure why you think race is an important enough factor to mention, though. Nor am I sure what this undecided case has to do with the decided case in Wisconsin, except as a whataboutism.

You honestly don't understand why race might be an important factor?

 

[Eurotrash]

Any evidence the jury was composed of "gun nuts"?

I am willing to bet my life that the jury members were gullible and/or predisposed to find Rittenhouse innocent due to political beliefs about guns and/or race and/or protestors.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

I am willing to bet my life that the jury members were gullible and/or predisposed to find Rittenhouse innocent due to political beliefs about guns and/or race and/or protestors.

That's opinion, not fact.

 

[Eurotrash]

That's opinion, not fact.

I made no suggestion that it was fact. None of us know what the jurors believed about anything. I said I was willing to bet my life. That is all.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

A jury decided that it was necessary he shoot the people he shot.

Not necessary....just legal.

Legal doesn't always mean right....but you know that, don't you?

 

[Michael Cole]

Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence pales compared to the fact he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

[Moon]

Cant give an inch on second amendment rights in order to make sure teenagers everywhere can carry a Mass Murder Machine to a riot and completely unnecessarily shoot a few people?
Yeah. Great messaging there. Just one of many things about the Gun Nut Nayshun that make you go EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW........

lol

 

[RF667799]

I am willing to bet my life that the jury members were gullible and/or predisposed to find Rittenhouse innocent due to political beliefs about guns and/or race and/or protestors.

Not much of a stake being wagered, considering nobody has any way to prove that conjecture right or wrong.

 

[RF667799]

Not necessary....just legal.

Legal doesn't always mean right....but you know that, don't you?

The basis of self defense with lethal force, is that it is only justified when necessary to protect from death or serious injury.

 

[RF667799]

You honestly don't understand why race might be an important factor?

Tell me why?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

The basis of self defense with lethal force, is that it is only justified when necessary to protect from death or serious injury.

So it was legal.

Necessary would be questionable at best, since once again, in conjunction with my statement about it being legal but not inherently right, comes from my personal questioning whether or not someone should be able to choose to put themselves at risk and still claim necessity, since they could have also chosen to simply not be in that situation.

And yes, I am aware that that is merely my opinion......but when discussing right and wrong, mine is as important as anyone elses.

 

[RF667799]

So it was legal.

Necessary would be questionable at best, since once again, in conjunction with my statement about it being legal but not inherently right, comes from my personal questioning whether or not someone should be able to choose to put themselves at risk and still claim necessity, since they could have also chosen to simply not be in that situation.

And yes, I am aware that that is merely my opinion......but when discussing right and wrong, mine is as important as anyone elses.

Then we could look at it from the other side, and say that the rioters put themselves at risk when they chose to attack KR,even though such attack wasn't necessary. The rioters did not have to put themselves in that situation either. Walking in a bad neighborhood at 0100 hrs might not be prudent, but it doesn't mean that one gives up his right to defend himself from attack.

In the immediate sense, what was relevant was if KR had reasonable belief that those attacking him meant to harm him.

And if you intend to default to an extremely subjective notion of right and wrong that erases any notion of difference between the two concepts, we are done.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Then we could look at it from the other side, and say that the rioters put themselves at risk when they chose to attack KR,even though such attack wasn't necessary. The rioters did not have to put themselves in that situation either. Walking in a bad neighborhood at 0100 hrs might not be prudent, but it doesn't mean that one gives up his right to defend himself from attack.

In the immediate sense, what was relevant was if KR had reasonable belief that those attacking him meant to harm him.

And if you intend to default to an extremely subjective notion of right and wrong that erases any notion of difference between the two concepts, we are done.

Whats subjective about my opinion? Its quite objective, actually.

In my opinion, Kyle was responsible for ALL of his actions, starting with leaving his home miles from the incident and going somewhere where he felt he needed a firearm to be safe. In my opinion, that was the wrong decision to make. I'm even willing to concede that while dumb as shit to do, it was completely legal. That still doesn't mean it was the smart and prudent thing to do, nor right in terms of self preservation, if that is what we are to take into account.

Running towards the chaos put him at risk the second he made that decision. Again, I understand that nothing legally prevented him from doing it, and I never even addressed whether or not he had given up his right to defend himself. I simply recognize that there is a difference between something being legally right and that same thing being the stupidest, least logical and most incorrect decision that one could choose from a multitude of options.

 

[RF667799]

Whats subjective about my opinion? Its quite objective, actually.

In my opinion, Kyle was responsible for ALL of his actions, starting with leaving his home miles from the incident and going somewhere where he felt he needed a firearm to be safe. In my opinion, that was the wrong decision to make. I'm even willing to concede that while dumb as shit to do, it was completely legal. That still doesn't mean it was the smart and prudent thing to do, nor right in terms of self preservation, if that is what we are to take into account.

Running towards the chaos put him at risk the second he made that decision. Again, I understand that nothing legally prevented him from doing it, and I never even addressed whether or not he had given up his right to defend himself. I simply recognize that there is a difference between something being legally right and that same thing being the stupidest, least logical and most incorrect decision that one could choose from a multitude of options.

Is it within your opinion that a rape victim is actually responsible for his rape, on account of straying too far from home and going somewhere that rape was a possibility?