It's Called Self Defense.

[roadeyes]

He saved his own life potentially by having his gun. Those consequences are better than the alternative.

His life wouldn't have been in jeopardy if he hadn't been there. Gawd this "rights" bs just knows no bounds.
What about him breaking curfew? Tell me how someone breaks the law by breaking curfew, puts their own life in jeopardy willingly,
and then you think he's in the right to save his own life at the expense of others when he clearly he was careless, lawless, and put himself
in harms way but yep, he's justified all right, LoL!

I would have been a little more lenient had he not broke curfew but your going to say that that was also his right because of the situation?
I'm sure that must be the case because the gov't must have been wrong to impose a curfew.

 

[muttly]

No one that wasn't legally authorized/allowed to be.

That would exclude Rittenhouse of course ... AND most assuredly anyone protesting or rioting (which are two entirely different things BTW)



I didn't claim that no one was there - that's some concoction of your own making ...

And the above is most likely offered to deflect and avoid grappling with Rittenhouse's culpability for having violated multiple laws, the ultimate consequence of which was that he ended up murdering several people.

Rittenhouse should have been at home, in bed ... after being given a glass of warm milk, being read a bedtime story, and being safely tucked in for the night by his Momma ...

The only diversion is saying he shouldn’t have been there and that makes him culpable. His life was threatened and he used self defense. Justified? Yes or no answer please.

 

[muttly]

Also sarcasm saying no one was there to make a point about your absurd argument because he broke curfew and he had a gun with some legal issues that he doesn’t have a right to defend himself anyway with his weapon.

 

[Turtle]

Nope ... particularly when you include the entirety of what Dan said:

When you include the entirely of what he said, it's just another example of the "so tell" where a sentence begins with "so" and invariably incorrectly mischaracterizes what someone said.

Nevertheless, any English teacher on the planet will confirm for you that the sentence is not a quote but is a question, despite the lack of grammatical punctuation. The sentence is also an example of an if/then (albeit flawed) opinion which contains no personal attack whatsoever. And trying to falsely label it as a personal attack is itself a personal attack by falsely accusing someone of doing something they did not do. That's the kind of confrontation that will finally crack the thin ice you're standing on. I strongly suggest you get back to the issues at hand instead of personally challenging individuals regarding opinions. Challenging an opinion is fine, as long as you don't make it about the individual (reply to the post, not the poster). You are literally one more incident away from being more trouble than you're worth.

 

[roadeyes]

Everyone has the right to defend themselves with lethal force if neccessary and on a technical level, violating a curfew doesn't also mean that you can link it to him wanting to go down there with intent to kill however his voice recording about wanting to shoot the shoplifters (notice he didn't say stop, he specifically said "shoot") incriminates him, at least ideologically anyways.

Even if he gets off on a technicality because yes he was being chased and in fear for his life, I just want you to admit that he was a vigilante and he willingly put himself in harms way against a lawful curfew order and he deserved to die himself if he was shot.

I also want everyone to admit that it's whackos like him that are the ones who will be responsible for ever increasing gun laws that are exactly whats going to get your rights taken away because he obviously doesn't know responsible gun ownership.

I'm in your corner in defence of the lethal use of force law, no question and always will be. In this case however, I hope they do prove intent. I just hope the fallout from it isn't worse....

 

[Turtle]

I would have been a little more lenient had he not broke curfew but your going to say that that was also his right because of the situation?

You don't give up your rights when you break curfew.

 

[Turtle]

Even if he gets off on a technicality because yes he was being chased and in fear for his life...

That's not a technically.

 

[roadeyes]

I merely said technicality because I wanted to separate it from the possiblility he gets off because of ideology that's all.
That's really the only two ways he can get off. Either through a technicality or by jury who believes his ideology for being there was justified.

Turtle are you going to actually add anything informative to this convo or are you just going to pick apart other people's sentences in search of grammatical or theoretical errors because quite frankly that's all you have done and thats all you seem to do now. You've always had a habit of doing this even before you were a mod and it's even more noticeable now that this place has become a ghost town with less threads so if you don't have anything factual (or even wildly speculative to add) then just get lost!

 

[danthewolf00]

1. 2 thugs were out with guns doing harm already to people trying to put fires out.
2 yes there was a curfew in place BUT nobody was obeying it.
3. If it was you out there trying to put your home or business out because some one set it on fire would you want rittenhouse or the blm/antifa thugs helping....

 

[muttly]

I merely said technicality because I wanted to separate it from the possiblility he gets off because of ideology that's all.
That's really the only two ways he can get off. Either through a technicality or by jury who believes his ideology for being there was justified.

Turtle are you going to actually add anything informative to this convo or are you just going to pick apart other people's sentences in search of grammatical or theoretical errors because quite frankly that's all you have done and thats all you seem to do now. You've always had a habit of doing this even before you were a mod and it's even more noticeable now that this place has become a ghost town with less threads so if you don't have anything factual (or even wildly speculative to add) then just get lost!

Actually he has. His last two comments, while succinct were spot on.

 

[danthewolf00]

I merely said technicality because I wanted to separate it from the possiblility he gets off because of ideology that's all.
That's really the only two ways he can get off. Either through a technicality or by jury who believes his ideology for being there was justified.

Turtle are you going to actually add anything informative to this convo or are you just going to pick apart other people's sentences in search of grammatical or theoretical errors because quite frankly that's all you have done and thats all you seem to do now. You've always had a habit of doing this even before you were a mod and it's even more noticeable now that this place has become a ghost town with less threads so if you don't have anything factual (or even wildly speculative to add) then just get lost!

Lol disrespect turtle at your own peril.

 

[roadeyes]

2 yes there was a curfew in place BUT nobody was obeying it.

So, once again you are saying two wrongs make a right. You are trying to justify him being there and you can't and to say that nobody was obeying it does not make him being there justifiable especially when he was not defending his own property yet you are still trying to make him look like a saviour.

 

[roadeyes]

Anyways I have better things to waste my bandwidth on and I already bowed out earlier so have fun!

 

[LDB]

Anyways I have better things to waste my bandwidth on and I already bowed out earlier so have fun!

How many times is this now that you are quitting? I've lost count.

 

[Turtle]

said technicality because I wanted to separate it from the possiblility he gets off because of ideology that's all.

He's being prosecuted in the first place because of ideology. Others who committed more ideological acceptable crimes, though prosecutable crimes just the same, haven't even been charged.

I'm pretty sure that the trial will, at least mostly, settle it.

@Turtle are you going to actually add anything informative to this convo or are you just going to pick apart other people's sentences in search of grammatical or theoretical errors

I'm just going to pick apart other people's sentences in search of grammatical or theoretical errors. That's far more productive and fun than trying to have a conversation with someone who thinks they can determine guilt or innocence based on cherry picking evidence and mind reading.

so if you don't have anything factual (or even wildly speculative to add) then just get lost!

Never make the third out at third. Never walk the pitcher. Never challenge the forum administrator. The end result of all of those are bad.

 

[Turtle]

Tell me how someone breaks the law by breaking curfew, puts their own life in jeopardy willingly,
and then you think he's in the right to save his own life at the expense of others when he clearly he was careless, lawless, and put himself
in harms way but yep, he's justified all right, LoL!

He didn't break curfew, but everything else about that describes George Zimmerman perfectly.

 

[coalminer]

1. 2 thugs were out with guns doing harm already to people trying to put fires out.
2 yes there was a curfew in place BUT nobody was obeying it.
3. If it was you out there trying to put your home or business out because some one set it on fire would you want rittenhouse or the blm/antifa thugs helping....

Dont forget the thug that drove 150 (or so) miles with his AR-15 who wanted to start something.

There was a case here in Florida where a guy claimed the "stand your ground" defense, but in reality, he was the one who started the confrontation, and when the guy pushed him, he pulled out his gun and killed the other guy, he was charged because he instigated it. I believe this is what this guy did, he went out of his way to start something then claimed self defense when he got into trouble.

 

[RLENT]

He's being prosecuted in the first place because of ideology. Others who committed more ideological acceptable crimes, though prosecutable crimes just the same, haven't even been charged.

I'm pretty sure that the trial will, at least mostly, settle it.

And which way do you see it going ?

 

[muttly]

Dont forget the thug that drove 150 (or so) miles with his AR-15 who wanted to start something.

There was a case here in Florida where a guy claimed the "stand your ground" defense, but in reality, he was the one who started the confrontation, and when the guy pushed him, he pulled out his gun and killed the other guy, he was charged because he instigated it. I believe this is what this guy did, he went out of his way to start something then claimed self defense when he got into trouble.

No evidence of that. Please provide info if you have. Thanks

 

[coalminer]

No evidence of that. Please provide info if you have. Thanks

Sorry, I should have mentioned that was my opinion based on what I have seen that was reported.