By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I agreed before with this prediction only because I knew that the propagandists at CNN and MSDNC (or make that "JTNBC," now that jury tampering is on their CV) would do everything to fire up the ignoramuses who watch those stations.
But I've noticed that they were only unhinged for a couple hours, and have cooled off now.
Clearly, they got the call from the top lay off.
Clearly, their masters don’t need or want riots this year, with Democrats in charge. Particularly with Biden and Harris' numbers already in the toilet.
If you had read them very well indeed you would have read that I already corrected myself on the “make an example” comment.
I am not calling him names. I am just saying his actions were foolish. (Adjective: lacking good sense or judgement; unwise). Again your reading skills have let you down.
I have not mentioned the other bloke because the thread is entitled “Kyle Rittenhouse”. For the record and for the avoidance of any doubt I think the riots we saw were absolutely shameful and everyone involved is utter scum, including the three pieces of pond life that attacked Rittenhouse. I can’t be more unequivocal than that but you’ll probably accuse me of supporting them in a minute.
Try to read less between the lines and more of what is actually written. You will find I have been very consistent.
I will say it one more time. If you fail to comprehend it then that’s a you problem.
I think Rittenhouse was well within his rights to defend himself, I believe he was acting with good intentions. I believe he should be acquitted. However I believe he made a foolish choice to act as a vigilante, despite his good intentions it put him in a dangerous situation that quickly overcame him and he was lucky to escape with his life. It should serve as an example to others that if you play with fire you might get burnt. So the next time these scumbags riot, which is imminent I’m sure, others looking to pick up a rifle and go and help may think twice so they don’t end up splattered over the world news like Kyle Rittenhouse or even worse splattered all over the road riddled with bulletholes.
So read that. I’m not writing it again. Don’t read between the lines there is nothing there apart from what you want to see in your bizarre mind.
[Post edited 19 Nov 2021 20:59]
He didn’t act as a vigilante.
You haven’t understood the trial from word 1.
How is putting out fires being a vigilante?
If your neighbours house was on fire and you put it out - would you be a vigilante? Would you be foolish?
Once you understand the case then you may have some words for us that we can understand. At the moment you are talking nonsense.
This verdict has now shown that the public CAN help the community when under attack from terrorists and be perfectly within their rights to defend themselves when they are turned on.
A bloke of excellent character and I’d be very proud if I ever have a son and he had his morals, his courage and his standards.
I’m amazed how calm he was when attacked by an armed gang intent on killing him, making sure he never shot unless the threat was imminent, a lot of professionals and highly trained individuals may have shot far more people than he did in his circumstance, he was very reserved and there are a couple of attackers who can count themselves lucky he had such composure.
It’s a stark lesson to those rioters that they cannot continue their reign of terror by putting peoples lives in danger.
They WILL defend themselves.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2021 0:54]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Ronna McDaniel, the GOP chair, said: “Before he knew the facts, Biden prejudged the Rittenhouse case. He smeared a teenager to score political points and spread lies about this case. What Biden did was dangerous and inflammatory. Biden needs to apologise and ACT NOW before the left uses his lies to fuel violence.”
Hard to disagree.
The moron has doubled down by stating the obvious not guilty verdict is concerning.
Bloke needs to be removed immediately.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 00:00 - Nov 20 by Dr_Parnassus
He didn’t act as a vigilante.
You haven’t understood the trial from word 1.
How is putting out fires being a vigilante?
If your neighbours house was on fire and you put it out - would you be a vigilante? Would you be foolish?
Once you understand the case then you may have some words for us that we can understand. At the moment you are talking nonsense.
This verdict has now shown that the public CAN help the community when under attack from terrorists and be perfectly within their rights to defend themselves when they are turned on.
A bloke of excellent character and I’d be very proud if I ever have a son and he had his morals, his courage and his standards.
I’m amazed how calm he was when attacked by an armed gang intent on killing him, making sure he never shot unless the threat was imminent, a lot of professionals and highly trained individuals may have shot far more people than he did in his circumstance, he was very reserved and there are a couple of attackers who can count themselves lucky he had such composure.
It’s a stark lesson to those rioters that they cannot continue their reign of terror by putting peoples lives in danger.
They WILL defend themselves.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2021 0:54]
vigilante /ˌvɪdʒɪˈlanti/ Learn to pronounce noun a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
This is literally what he did you silly goose.
As I said, your inability to comprehend the most basic of concepts is a you problem.
vigilante /ˌvɪdʒɪˈlanti/ Learn to pronounce noun a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
This is literally what he did you silly goose.
As I said, your inability to comprehend the most basic of concepts is a you problem.
How did he undertake law enforcement?
That’s not what he did at all, “literally” or otherwise.
That’s what the bungling prosecution and the criminal media accused him of, unfortunately their arguments were not convincing…… or true, which is the important part.
As we said:-
If he shot them for rioting = vigilante.
If he shot them because they attacked him = person undertaking self defence.
It’s that simple and really not a difficult thing to comprehend.
- If you put your neighbours fire out that a group of kids were starting, you would NOT be a vigilante.
- If they attacked you for putting it out and you defended yourself, you would still NOT be a vigilante.
- However If YOU attacked them because they burned your neighbours house down, you would THEN be a vigilante.
That isn’t what happened, the first two points are what happened. So he wasn’t a vigilante. At no point did he undertake any violence or any “personal law enforcement” to the rioters. He simply put out the fires they were starting.
Not even close to being the same. Geese or no geese.
Your issue is you don’t have the first idea about the case and are making assumptions that are proven false, and have been proven false in a court of law.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2021 6:43]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 06:31 - Nov 20 by Dr_Parnassus
How did he undertake law enforcement?
That’s not what he did at all, “literally” or otherwise.
That’s what the bungling prosecution and the criminal media accused him of, unfortunately their arguments were not convincing…… or true, which is the important part.
As we said:-
If he shot them for rioting = vigilante.
If he shot them because they attacked him = person undertaking self defence.
It’s that simple and really not a difficult thing to comprehend.
- If you put your neighbours fire out that a group of kids were starting, you would NOT be a vigilante.
- If they attacked you for putting it out and you defended yourself, you would still NOT be a vigilante.
- However If YOU attacked them because they burned your neighbours house down, you would THEN be a vigilante.
That isn’t what happened, the first two points are what happened. So he wasn’t a vigilante. At no point did he undertake any violence or any “personal law enforcement” to the rioters. He simply put out the fires they were starting.
Not even close to being the same. Geese or no geese.
Your issue is you don’t have the first idea about the case and are making assumptions that are proven false, and have been proven false in a court of law.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2021 6:43]
Take it up with Susie Dent or the bloke who writes the dictionary. Mr Collins I think it is.
The reason he was there in the first place was because the local authorities and law enforcement failed. I’m sure you said that yourself but I have no inclination to go trawling through all that again. It was hard enough the first time round. I’m even pretty confident that Rittenhouse himself said that’s why he was there.
If it looks like a vigilante, quacks like a vigilante, it’s probably a vigilante.
Take it up with Susie Dent or the bloke who writes the dictionary. Mr Collins I think it is.
The reason he was there in the first place was because the local authorities and law enforcement failed. I’m sure you said that yourself but I have no inclination to go trawling through all that again. It was hard enough the first time round. I’m even pretty confident that Rittenhouse himself said that’s why he was there.
If it looks like a vigilante, quacks like a vigilante, it’s probably a vigilante.
Now calm down.
No issue with the dictionary definition.
I disagree with your definition of putting out fires.
He was there because the authorities were not there in order to stop the rioters. That doesn’t mean he was acting as law enforcement, it means due to the lack of law enforcement fires were allowed to be started in businesses, which he then put out. He wasn’t enacting any form of law enforcement as you suggest.
Stop making yourself look a moron.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Kyle Rittenhouse on 09:57 - Nov 20 by Dr_Parnassus
No issue with the dictionary definition.
I disagree with your definition of putting out fires.
He was there because the authorities were not there in order to stop the rioters. That doesn’t mean he was acting as law enforcement, it means due to the lack of law enforcement fires were allowed to be started in businesses, which he then put out. He wasn’t enacting any form of law enforcement as you suggest.
Stop making yourself look a moron.
You can perform all the mental gymnastics you like. It doesn’t change the facts.
I can see you’re very passionate about this and you’re obviously affected by the politics of the situation but I just deal with logic and facts. Perhaps your judgement has been tainted by your subconscious bias?
You can perform all the mental gymnastics you like. It doesn’t change the facts.
I can see you’re very passionate about this and you’re obviously affected by the politics of the situation but I just deal with logic and facts. Perhaps your judgement has been tainted by your subconscious bias?
There is no mental gymnastics needed.
Did he enact law enforcement on the rioters? If so, how?
When he shot, he was being attacked. That’s not vigilantism, so what are you using to make such a statement? What law was he enforcing?
Putting out fires and cleaning graffiti is not enacting law enforcement on the rioters.
Without that then I will only assume it’s your bias talking, as you clearly are ignoring the facts to cover your own lack of knowledge of the case and can’t back down.
Such a shame.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2021 10:29]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
The problem with the USA is the right to bear arms in a public place in certain states. If that wasn’t in law then none of this would have occurred.
I’m not convinced mate.
I mean the riots still would have happened, because the media would still be actively race baiting. Meaning people would still take to the streets and burn things down.
People would still go to help put out those fires. People would still be angry at white people if they go to put them out and call them white supremacists, they would still be attacked as a result.
You probably just switch out the guns and replace them with knives or some sort of other killing device.
The issue with the US is the media is so powerful and so politically driven, it lies constantly with no consequence.
Did you know that the US media is so criminal with it’s pushing of white supremacy in situations they don’t exist, that the three main media outlets in Brazil and the Independent in the U.K. had to amend their coverage of this case.
They just assumed the people shot were black, due to the pushing of this senseless “white supremacist” lie.
They were bemused when they were told everyone involved was white.
1) it shows how lazy the media is where they just assume based on the narrative 2) it shows just how criminal these narratives are.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2021 12:34]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
If there was an real appetite to learn from this then the authorities should act swiftly to quash any post verdict disturbances.
This would stop the other side promoting taking things into your own hands.
Again, important to note that nobody has promoted taking anything into their own hands.
The out of town aggressors were the rioters.
Kyle Rittenhouse went there to put out fires and give medical treatment to anyone injured. He didn’t attack anyone or take anything into his own hands apart from defending himself.
Taking things into your own hands when attacked is something not limited to America, it’s something universal, and of course the absolutely correct thing to do.
I would back you hurting your attacker, as I would hope you would if I did the same to mine.
Not being pedantic either, it’s vital these words are ironed out and challenged because the media is using them to distort reality.
They went with “Jury ensure it’s open season on protestors” this morning. How criminal and dishonest is that?
Nobody was shot for protesting.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2021 13:00]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
