Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,562
Isn't it great that murderers can get sponsorship now?
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Soldato
Black Rifle Coffee lol.
Haha, well they are a gun related company I guess.
Wasn't aware he'd been convicted of any murders though?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,562
Populism is so fun.
Anyone think the system of bail in the US gets a bit absurd?
I can understand having some amount deposited to try and ensure someone who has been charged complies with their bail conditions and turns up when they're supposed to etc.. I guess I can understand the bail bondsmen system whereby some third party can stump up the amount and then will track you down if you fail to show or flee.
But with these headline cases the amounts get a bit silly and seemingly rather pointless... bail was set at 2 million... so a bunch of rich donors have stumped up the cash... so where is the risk for the suspect? If he was going to flee over the border to say Mexico then it isn't his 2 million that stands to be lost. Seems somewhat unlikely that he actually is a flight risk tbh..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55024994
I can understand having some amount deposited to try and ensure someone who has been charged complies with their bail conditions and turns up when they're supposed to etc.. I guess I can understand the bail bondsmen system whereby some third party can stump up the amount and then will track you down if you fail to show or flee.
But with these headline cases the amounts get a bit silly and seemingly rather pointless... bail was set at 2 million... so a bunch of rich donors have stumped up the cash... so where is the risk for the suspect? If he was going to flee over the border to say Mexico then it isn't his 2 million that stands to be lost. Seems somewhat unlikely that he actually is a flight risk tbh..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55024994
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,562
He had already killed someone at that point for the grevious crime of throwing a plastic bag.
Soldato
Not only that but they gloss over the fact that he shouldn't of had access to that fire arm in the first place. According to what I have read and my understanding is that 1. He was under age, 2. The gun was purchased by someone else on his behalf.
I get that ultimately he may have had to defend himself if say some people charged at him but the fact he was even there in the first place with a gun he shouldn't of had should not be overlooked?!??!!??!?!?
Can someone answer that atleast?
Suspended
Now now, try and tell the truth...
"The beginning of the first confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum was witnessed by Daily Caller reporter Richie McGinniss. According to McGinnis, it seemed that Rosenbaum and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse, who was trying to evade them; Rosenbaum then tried to "engage" Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse managed to avoid this by sidestepping and running away.[33][34]
The remainder of Rosenbaum's confrontation, and the following incidents with Huber and Grosskreutz, were recorded in cellphone footage from multiple angles, including the moments of the shooting.[6] Video footage showed Rittenhouse being pursued across a parking lot by Rosenbaum,[5] who threw something in Rittenhouse's direction,[35][34] identified as a plastic bag.[33] As Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum, two shots can be heard, one from an unknown third party, fired for an unknown reason, and one from Joshua Ziminski, who fired a self-described "warning shot" into the air,[36] causing Rittenhouse to stop running and turn towards the sound of Ziminski's shot.[5] On-the-scene reporter Richie McGinniss has since stated that the sound of the shot was the moment Rittenhouse “went from running away to aiming his weapon”.[36] Then, according to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum managed to engage Rittenhouse and tried to take his rifle from him.[37][38][39] Rittenhouse then fired four shots, hitting Rosenbaum in the groin, back, and left hand. The bullets fractured Rosenbaum's pelvis, perforated his right lung and liver,[40] and caused additional minor wounds to his left thigh and forehead.[40] Rittenhouse remained near the fatally wounded Rosenbaum as McGinnis began administering first aid. Rittenhouse then made a phone call and was heard saying "I just killed somebody," and then fled as more protesters arrived.[39]"
Soldato
Ah but the racist convicted child abuser, the violent career criminal and the firearms carrying felon he shot while they either physically attacked him, pointed firearms at him or charged at him (like any sane rational person does to a person with a firearm) were all on the "correct" side, therefore 17 year old Rittenhouse must be on the "wrong" side and must be purged regardless of his rights to a fair trial or even regardless of what his actual beliefs on BLM and their viewpoints were.
In the end I don't believe that even a full trial, with it's eventual conviction or release or Rittenhouse, will end the discussions as to his guilt/innocence and it will continue to be a flashpoint for all those on both sides entrenched within their "I am right everyone else is wrong (and I will lie to prove it) and therefore must be silenced" positions.
Now they've dropped the lesser charge (the one I though he would get convicted over) I think he'll be found innocent (regardless of my own opinion), and that'll start a whole new "We're so inclusive because we set fire to everything" protests from "the Left".
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,562
Soldato
Whether or not he defended himself in a fashion that can be defined as self defence is irrelevant to the other issues. When you look at those issues you realise he shouldn't of had the fire arm in the first place. It was a terrible judgement call for him to go down there whether he believed he was helping or not.
He was a minor in possession of a firearm that was not purchased by himself.
You cannot purchase across state lines what you cannot possess where you live, i.e age restrictions afaik.
He put himself in that situation which ultimately led to three people dying, that does not absolve anyone of their actions for example the people attacking him but he is NOT without blame.
He was a minor in possession of a firearm that was not purchased by himself.
You cannot purchase across state lines what you cannot possess where you live, i.e age restrictions afaik.
He put himself in that situation which ultimately led to three people dying, that does not absolve anyone of their actions for example the people attacking him but he is NOT without blame.
Suspended
So just to clarify yes, all 3 were criminals. 1 is, as stated a paedophile, 1 is, as stated a domestic abuser and the 3rd has quite the sheet of misdemeaners
Soldato
And yet none of those crimes carry a death sentence despite what we personally may think of them. None of this alters the fact he shouldn't have been there in the first place, and he shouldn't have been armed with a weapon he can't yet purchase.
Nope the backgrounds are not relevant to the discussion.
Soldato
I wish those very important parts of the whole did not just totally go over peoples heads.
Soldato
Yup and all we would hear about is the entire background about the shooter in order to discredit their being there for self defence etc.
Literally anytime a minority is involved in anything.
Suspended
And nobody has said they were killed for any of those crimes...people are merely pointing out that they're no great loss to society.
Soldato
That is pathetic Imo. Trying to say they are "No great loss to society" is just a way to try and devalue their lives to lessen the impact of what happened.
Do you have any opinions on the legality of him having a firearm etc? I think that's a pretty key thing to discuss when arguing self defence.