And Rittenhouse put himself in the risk of harm by showing up with an AK-15 duri

[Texacon]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216056509


The main reason they think KR is guilty is because they have comprehension problems, they want to believe the lies, and they won't do the research to see what they believe is just not so.

no_hypocrisy (39,090 posts)


And Rittenhouse put himself in the risk of harm by showing up with an AK-15 during a riot/protest

Rittenhouse Fired Shots When Rioters Attacked, Defense Says
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/rittenhouse-fired-shots-when-rioters-attacked-defense-says/ar-AAQJvfN?ocid=msedgntp

Rittenhouse assumed the risk of harm by showing up and using a weapon up-until-then he was illegally carrying. *If* he was attacked as he claims, then he provoked it with his presence and being armed.

No self defense here. He shouldn't have been in that place at that time, period.

uponit7771 (79,583 posts)

7. Some people feel "reasonable means to escape death" is firing at unarmed people while running away

... from them.

Didn't happen.

Crepuscular (938 posts)

11. ...

You could make a pretty good argument that anyone who shows up and participates in a riot or civil unrest is putting themselves at risk of harm. I would suspect a large percentage of the people attending were probably armed with some kind of weapon, be it a handgun, knife, club, etc. We know one of the individuals killed by Rittenhouse was packing illegally. Was he equally guilty of provoking with his presence and being armed?

Then a DUmmie jumped out of the bushes to correct ^^^^ that DUmmie because he didn't want to answer the question.

Straw Man (5,695 posts)

12. Slight correction.

We know one of the individuals killed by Rittenhouse was packing illegally. Was he equally guilty of provoking with his presence and being armed?

That was Grosskreutz, and he wasn't killed, but wounded. He was carrying a pistol concealed. No one knew he was armed until he drew it. Rittenhouse, on the other hand, was strolling around carrying a rifle openly. The people in the streets knew what he was doing and whose side he was on.

I don't think Rittenhouse went there with the intention of killing people. I think he went there to stroll around with his gun and feel like a big man for the first time in his life. But when shit got real, he panicked and massively overreacted. He ran like a rabbit, then turned and opened fire. That's not the way it's done.

I'll bet a whole bunch of GG's friends knew he was carrying a weapon.  Almost guarantee it.  People like him won't walk around CC'ing without bragging about it.

And no, KR didn't "run, turn around and open fire ..."  He was trying to get away and he was knocked to the ground.  THAT'S not the way it's done.

KC

[Texacon]

Interestingly enough I read yesterday that a couple of the major leftist news orgs (like MSLSD) didn't air the defenses closing statement.  So most of these yahoo's didn't see both closing statements, only the one that supports their narrative.

I think that is negligence on the part of those news orgs, personally.  IF there is unrest after the verdict, a lot of these folks and these type of folks, won't have a clue WHY the jury may have voted the way they did because they only saw one side of the argument and it supported what they wanted to believe.  I do think there are some out there who wouldn't be 'up in arms' if they were able to see both sides.

JMHO

KC

[Patriot Guard Rider]

Interestingly enough I read yesterday that a couple of the major leftist news orgs (like MSLSD) didn't air the defenses closing statement.  So most of these yahoo's didn't see both closing statements, only the one that supports their narrative.

I think that is negligence on the part of those news orgs, personally.  IF there is unrest after the verdict, a lot of these folks and these type of folks, won't have a clue WHY the jury may have voted the way they did because they only saw one side of the argument and it supported what they wanted to believe. I do think there are some out there who wouldn't be 'up in arms' if they were able to see both sides.

JMHO

KC

Very few. Most only believe what supports their position.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So, nobody is going to talk about the "AK-15."

[Patriot Guard Rider]

So, nobody is going to talk about the "AK-15."

Is that similar to an AR-47?

[Aristotelian]

Interestingly enough I read yesterday that a couple of the major leftist news orgs (like MSLSD) didn't air the defenses closing statement.  So most of these yahoo's didn't see both closing statements, only the one that supports their narrative.

It would have helped the jury if they only had to hear the prosecution's closing statement too...in fact, when a case is so obvious, why bother with a defence at all. Just have a quick poll on the DUmp before finding such people guilty...much simpler. /DUmmy mode

[Texacon]

So, nobody is going to talk about the "AK-15."

Wait, did the prosecutor say that?

KC

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Wait, did the prosecutor say that?

KC

The op

[Texacon]

The op

 

I missed that!  I was reading too fast.

KC

[SVPete]

no_hypocrisy (39,090 posts)


And Rittenhouse put himself in the risk of harm by showing up with an AK-15 during a riot/protest

  AK-15,        

  So, since women using the Los Gatos Creek Trail between Los Gatos and Campbell have, in the past, been raped there *, any woman using it who raped there is now responsible for being raped? And if they have a German shepherd or pit bull running with them they are criminally and civilly responsible if their dog takes a chunk out of the rapist?

* The one fact missing from my hypothetical scenario is that the rapes were not recent, and police have gotten the rapists out of circulation. What IS recent, however is Sacred Homeless People starting to camp along the trail, so they bring a new mental and political dynamic. Maybe these Sacred Homeless People wil just litter the sides of the trail with junk and crap wherever they crap; maybe they'll commit violent crimes; probably both.

[DUmpDiver]

So, nobody is going to talk about the "AK-15."

To be fair, I've been watching the whole trial and one of the defense attorneys did slip up once and make a reference to KR's AR-14.

[Patriot Guard Rider]

To be fair, I've been watching the whole trial and one of the defense attorneys did slip up once and make a reference to KR's AR-14.

No. The defense attorney was quoting the prosecutors opening statement. The prosecutor actually said that.