BLACK LIVES MATTER (Please Continue to Say Their Names) - Ahmaud Arbery
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 72, 73, 74  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 19543

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:48 am    Post subject:

Wow, not guilty on everything
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Brawn13
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jan 2019
Posts: 966

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:49 am    Post subject:

Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
Look at the videos objectively without political bias. He clearly was defending himself and took out a convicted child molester and mom beater. I have no problem with that.


Facts. Idk what everyone is on about. Its no surprise he was found not guilty. People crying about racism or white privilege smh.

He defended himself against Antifa rioting scum…good riddance
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 58208
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:01 am    Post subject:

^^^^ LINK SMH
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 19543

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:22 am    Post subject:

At least this time there’s no DA that goes on TV all happy and (bleep) about the not guilty verdict like the Trayvon one
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Halflife
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 7767

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:07 pm    Post subject:

Im more interested in Arbery case. That IMO is cut and dry. Rittenhouse, because of laws etc seemed like it would go either way and that's not including bias judge.

Also, I'm seeing posted by some and I agree that if dems try to die on this sword it will not serve them well. Biden has called him a white supremacist other have commented as well. Jury spoke, just move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49227
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:57 pm    Post subject:

Brawn13 wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
Look at the videos objectively without political bias. He clearly was defending himself and took out a convicted child molester and mom beater. I have no problem with that.


Facts. Idk what everyone is on about. Its no surprise he was found not guilty. People crying about racism or white privilege smh.

He defended himself against Antifa rioting scum…good riddance


Do you always wear wear your asinine MAGA hat? Or just on the internet?
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49227
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:59 pm    Post subject:

Halflife wrote:
Im more interested in Arbery case. That IMO is cut and dry. Rittenhouse, because of laws etc seemed like it would go either way and that's not including bias judge.

Also, I'm seeing posted by some and I agree that if dems try to die on this sword it will not serve them well. Biden has called him a white supremacist other have commented as well. Jury spoke, just move on.


Yeah, and hopefully karma catches up to that little POS in a big way.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49227
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:06 pm    Post subject:

Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
Look at the videos objectively without political bias. He clearly was defending himself and took out a convicted child molester and mom beater. I have no problem with that.


I watched all the videos at the time devoid of any political perspective at all. Rittenhouse was posturing with a deadly weapon. An unarmed man and he got into a confrontation. Instead of retreating, Rittenhouse turned and killed the unarmed man while he (Rittenhouse) was illegally carrying that weapon. That's not self defense. As for the irrelevant victim blaming. Maybe Rosenbaum was a total ahole, that doesn't change any of the facts of the evening.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Seemed like everyone was out there "posturing" that night, especially Rosenbaum which we see before the shooting incident being extremely hostile and using the "N word" while making threats (witness testimony.) He threw something first which only turned out to be a bag but could've been anything at the time (Molotov cocktail or otherwise, who knows) kept charging and reached for the gun. I'd say it's Darwinism if you charge a man with an AR. Any animal (including humans) will fight back if backed into a corner. He was also attacked by a guy with a skateboard and had a gun pointed at his head. Only fired when being attacked but that's just my opinion.

The gun charge was also thrown out because it wasn't a short barreled rifle so no, it wasn't illegal.


The fact that he had any gun was illegal, because he was a minor, and also illegally carried over state lines. He intended to go there to use his weapon to intimidate and that's exactly what he did. And when unarmed people responded to his threats while he was committing the crime of illegally carrying a weapon he killed Rosenbaum in circumstances that don't equate to self defense. The other person he murdered was Huber (skateboard) , who was trying to disarm an active shooter, so if anyone was acting in self defense, it was Huber. Grosskreutz was a similar situation and though he was armed, at least he has the same argument of self defense against an active shooter. It's also important to note that Grosskreutz never actually fired his weapon, which would indicate he was no the aggressor.

It's clear that Rittenhouse will walk, because the judge is a grossly biased assshole who clearly steered the trial to help an acquittal. But anyone who claims Rittenhouse is just some guy who was engaging in self defense is not being intellectually honest.
The gun was already in Kenosha at Dominick Black's house so it wasn't carried across any "state line" and if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've emptied his magazine. That's just a prosecution buzzword. Nobody out that night was up to any good. Every single person Rittenhouse had an altercation with had a criminal record a mile long including jumpkick man who was recently identified. If you point your gun at someone's head, I'd say that's reason enough for someone to blow your arm off. Again, if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've finished Grosskreutz off. Not to mention Grosskreutz never told the cops he had a gun that night because he was looking for a 10 mil payout from the city.


So you object to the term "active shooter" based on literal terms, fair enough. The fact remains that Rittenhouse was an armed person, fleeing the scene of a shooting brandishing a weapon and not surrendering that weapon, so clearly he was an active threat, even if he was not actually firing the weapon. So under those circumstances, those around him are completely within their rights to protect themselves and others by stopping that threat. What your personal opinion is about the character of the victims for action before that night, or in its aftermath, have no bearing on the facts of the event.

If Rittenhouse was actually of the belief he had acted righteously in self defense, after he had killed someone, the appropriate reaction is to stay at the scene, not flee while still brandishing the weapon. From a logical and ethical standpoint, there is no reasonable argument that Kyle Rittenhouse was purely an innocent person simply defending himself against an unarmed person. When you are the provocateur, or even a mutual participant in the escalation of a dangerous situation, self defense is eliminated. It's also important to note that the only people killed and shot that evening were by Rittenhouse, so he was the dangerous element in play. Not the people around him.

The jury thought otherwise


Yeah, thanks to a judge who helped steer it that way—it was in the cards from the outset.

But I am talking morally, logically and in reality. Not simply what a jury of 12 people ruled.

Plenty of guilty walk—and that's clearly what happened here.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 89062
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:55 pm    Post subject:

C M B wrote:
C M B wrote:


All video footage currently available shows Rittenhouse running away from people trying to beat him up/take his gun. He can argue that he didn't know if they were armed. One attacker definitely had a handgun. Handgun guy put his hands up at first, which made Rittenhouse hold his fire until handgun guy decided that this was just a pump fake and then drew on Rittenhouse before being rewarded for his tactical prowess with 5 years of rehab and physical therapy.


see? little rambo walks. all of the state lines stuff, why was he there etc. was always moot re: murder conviction


You can take the racist out of 4chan but…
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Black20Ice
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 1534

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:59 am    Post subject:

The system is NOT broken—it was built this way.

#RittenhouseVerdict
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 58208
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:18 am    Post subject:

Let's see if Rittenhouse turns into another Zimmerman. Feels emboldened, makes money for killing someone, gets into trouble, and is not really punished. I believe Zimmerman's net worth is around $10 million dollars. The system, a system I believe in, may have created a monster.

Rittenhouse dropped out of school because he was being bullied. I'll leave that to your reasoning construction.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:13 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Pau Gasol's Beard
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2009
Posts: 1410

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:32 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
Look at the videos objectively without political bias. He clearly was defending himself and took out a convicted child molester and mom beater. I have no problem with that.


I watched all the videos at the time devoid of any political perspective at all. Rittenhouse was posturing with a deadly weapon. An unarmed man and he got into a confrontation. Instead of retreating, Rittenhouse turned and killed the unarmed man while he (Rittenhouse) was illegally carrying that weapon. That's not self defense. As for the irrelevant victim blaming. Maybe Rosenbaum was a total ahole, that doesn't change any of the facts of the evening.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Seemed like everyone was out there "posturing" that night, especially Rosenbaum which we see before the shooting incident being extremely hostile and using the "N word" while making threats (witness testimony.) He threw something first which only turned out to be a bag but could've been anything at the time (Molotov cocktail or otherwise, who knows) kept charging and reached for the gun. I'd say it's Darwinism if you charge a man with an AR. Any animal (including humans) will fight back if backed into a corner. He was also attacked by a guy with a skateboard and had a gun pointed at his head. Only fired when being attacked but that's just my opinion.

The gun charge was also thrown out because it wasn't a short barreled rifle so no, it wasn't illegal.


The fact that he had any gun was illegal, because he was a minor, and also illegally carried over state lines. He intended to go there to use his weapon to intimidate and that's exactly what he did. And when unarmed people responded to his threats while he was committing the crime of illegally carrying a weapon he killed Rosenbaum in circumstances that don't equate to self defense. The other person he murdered was Huber (skateboard) , who was trying to disarm an active shooter, so if anyone was acting in self defense, it was Huber. Grosskreutz was a similar situation and though he was armed, at least he has the same argument of self defense against an active shooter. It's also important to note that Grosskreutz never actually fired his weapon, which would indicate he was no the aggressor.

It's clear that Rittenhouse will walk, because the judge is a grossly biased assshole who clearly steered the trial to help an acquittal. But anyone who claims Rittenhouse is just some guy who was engaging in self defense is not being intellectually honest.
The gun was already in Kenosha at Dominick Black's house so it wasn't carried across any "state line" and if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've emptied his magazine. That's just a prosecution buzzword. Nobody out that night was up to any good. Every single person Rittenhouse had an altercation with had a criminal record a mile long including jumpkick man who was recently identified. If you point your gun at someone's head, I'd say that's reason enough for someone to blow your arm off. Again, if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've finished Grosskreutz off. Not to mention Grosskreutz never told the cops he had a gun that night because he was looking for a 10 mil payout from the city.


So you object to the term "active shooter" based on literal terms, fair enough. The fact remains that Rittenhouse was an armed person, fleeing the scene of a shooting brandishing a weapon and not surrendering that weapon, so clearly he was an active threat, even if he was not actually firing the weapon. So under those circumstances, those around him are completely within their rights to protect themselves and others by stopping that threat. What your personal opinion is about the character of the victims for action before that night, or in its aftermath, have no bearing on the facts of the event.

If Rittenhouse was actually of the belief he had acted righteously in self defense, after he had killed someone, the appropriate reaction is to stay at the scene, not flee while still brandishing the weapon. From a logical and ethical standpoint, there is no reasonable argument that Kyle Rittenhouse was purely an innocent person simply defending himself against an unarmed person. When you are the provocateur, or even a mutual participant in the escalation of a dangerous situation, self defense is eliminated. It's also important to note that the only people killed and shot that evening were by Rittenhouse, so he was the dangerous element in play. Not the people around him.

The jury thought otherwise


Yeah, thanks to a judge who helped steer it that way—it was in the cards from the outset.

But I am talking morally, logically and in reality. Not simply what a jury of 12 people ruled.

Plenty of guilty walk—and that's clearly what happened here.

Do you really think 12 jurors are that stupid that the judge could "steer" them into an acquittal? You believe this because you're mad about the outcome and it makes you feel better to find a scapegoat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 89062
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:16 am    Post subject:

Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
Look at the videos objectively without political bias. He clearly was defending himself and took out a convicted child molester and mom beater. I have no problem with that.


I watched all the videos at the time devoid of any political perspective at all. Rittenhouse was posturing with a deadly weapon. An unarmed man and he got into a confrontation. Instead of retreating, Rittenhouse turned and killed the unarmed man while he (Rittenhouse) was illegally carrying that weapon. That's not self defense. As for the irrelevant victim blaming. Maybe Rosenbaum was a total ahole, that doesn't change any of the facts of the evening.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Seemed like everyone was out there "posturing" that night, especially Rosenbaum which we see before the shooting incident being extremely hostile and using the "N word" while making threats (witness testimony.) He threw something first which only turned out to be a bag but could've been anything at the time (Molotov cocktail or otherwise, who knows) kept charging and reached for the gun. I'd say it's Darwinism if you charge a man with an AR. Any animal (including humans) will fight back if backed into a corner. He was also attacked by a guy with a skateboard and had a gun pointed at his head. Only fired when being attacked but that's just my opinion.

The gun charge was also thrown out because it wasn't a short barreled rifle so no, it wasn't illegal.


The fact that he had any gun was illegal, because he was a minor, and also illegally carried over state lines. He intended to go there to use his weapon to intimidate and that's exactly what he did. And when unarmed people responded to his threats while he was committing the crime of illegally carrying a weapon he killed Rosenbaum in circumstances that don't equate to self defense. The other person he murdered was Huber (skateboard) , who was trying to disarm an active shooter, so if anyone was acting in self defense, it was Huber. Grosskreutz was a similar situation and though he was armed, at least he has the same argument of self defense against an active shooter. It's also important to note that Grosskreutz never actually fired his weapon, which would indicate he was no the aggressor.

It's clear that Rittenhouse will walk, because the judge is a grossly biased assshole who clearly steered the trial to help an acquittal. But anyone who claims Rittenhouse is just some guy who was engaging in self defense is not being intellectually honest.
The gun was already in Kenosha at Dominick Black's house so it wasn't carried across any "state line" and if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've emptied his magazine. That's just a prosecution buzzword. Nobody out that night was up to any good. Every single person Rittenhouse had an altercation with had a criminal record a mile long including jumpkick man who was recently identified. If you point your gun at someone's head, I'd say that's reason enough for someone to blow your arm off. Again, if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've finished Grosskreutz off. Not to mention Grosskreutz never told the cops he had a gun that night because he was looking for a 10 mil payout from the city.


So you object to the term "active shooter" based on literal terms, fair enough. The fact remains that Rittenhouse was an armed person, fleeing the scene of a shooting brandishing a weapon and not surrendering that weapon, so clearly he was an active threat, even if he was not actually firing the weapon. So under those circumstances, those around him are completely within their rights to protect themselves and others by stopping that threat. What your personal opinion is about the character of the victims for action before that night, or in its aftermath, have no bearing on the facts of the event.

If Rittenhouse was actually of the belief he had acted righteously in self defense, after he had killed someone, the appropriate reaction is to stay at the scene, not flee while still brandishing the weapon. From a logical and ethical standpoint, there is no reasonable argument that Kyle Rittenhouse was purely an innocent person simply defending himself against an unarmed person. When you are the provocateur, or even a mutual participant in the escalation of a dangerous situation, self defense is eliminated. It's also important to note that the only people killed and shot that evening were by Rittenhouse, so he was the dangerous element in play. Not the people around him.

The jury thought otherwise


Yeah, thanks to a judge who helped steer it that way—it was in the cards from the outset.

But I am talking morally, logically and in reality. Not simply what a jury of 12 people ruled.

Plenty of guilty walk—and that's clearly what happened here.

Do you really think 12 jurors are that stupid that the judge could "steer" them into an acquittal? You believe this because you're mad about the outcome and it makes you feel better to find a scapegoat.


I think maybe you should ask why YOU suddenly have an interest and a passion about this. It’s always the same. We always get the concerned conservatives telling us why the racist chode needs to be set free. Never here on behalf of anyone else. After a while, it starts to be obvious.

And fwiw, that white supremacist kid, abetted by his racist mother and racist cops and a judge, decided he was going to go play Rambo and get some (you know, the stuff he said with his own mouth that the judge wouldn’t allow in because it might make the jury think he planned to shoot someone). He then got himself in a gunfight after trying to intimidate a bunch of people with his assault rifle, and then shot some more when they bravely tried to stop him.

You can revel about him getting off, but don’t try and BS us about what you’re about here.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Pau Gasol's Beard
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2009
Posts: 1410

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:25 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
Look at the videos objectively without political bias. He clearly was defending himself and took out a convicted child molester and mom beater. I have no problem with that.


I watched all the videos at the time devoid of any political perspective at all. Rittenhouse was posturing with a deadly weapon. An unarmed man and he got into a confrontation. Instead of retreating, Rittenhouse turned and killed the unarmed man while he (Rittenhouse) was illegally carrying that weapon. That's not self defense. As for the irrelevant victim blaming. Maybe Rosenbaum was a total ahole, that doesn't change any of the facts of the evening.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Seemed like everyone was out there "posturing" that night, especially Rosenbaum which we see before the shooting incident being extremely hostile and using the "N word" while making threats (witness testimony.) He threw something first which only turned out to be a bag but could've been anything at the time (Molotov cocktail or otherwise, who knows) kept charging and reached for the gun. I'd say it's Darwinism if you charge a man with an AR. Any animal (including humans) will fight back if backed into a corner. He was also attacked by a guy with a skateboard and had a gun pointed at his head. Only fired when being attacked but that's just my opinion.

The gun charge was also thrown out because it wasn't a short barreled rifle so no, it wasn't illegal.


The fact that he had any gun was illegal, because he was a minor, and also illegally carried over state lines. He intended to go there to use his weapon to intimidate and that's exactly what he did. And when unarmed people responded to his threats while he was committing the crime of illegally carrying a weapon he killed Rosenbaum in circumstances that don't equate to self defense. The other person he murdered was Huber (skateboard) , who was trying to disarm an active shooter, so if anyone was acting in self defense, it was Huber. Grosskreutz was a similar situation and though he was armed, at least he has the same argument of self defense against an active shooter. It's also important to note that Grosskreutz never actually fired his weapon, which would indicate he was no the aggressor.

It's clear that Rittenhouse will walk, because the judge is a grossly biased assshole who clearly steered the trial to help an acquittal. But anyone who claims Rittenhouse is just some guy who was engaging in self defense is not being intellectually honest.
The gun was already in Kenosha at Dominick Black's house so it wasn't carried across any "state line" and if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've emptied his magazine. That's just a prosecution buzzword. Nobody out that night was up to any good. Every single person Rittenhouse had an altercation with had a criminal record a mile long including jumpkick man who was recently identified. If you point your gun at someone's head, I'd say that's reason enough for someone to blow your arm off. Again, if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've finished Grosskreutz off. Not to mention Grosskreutz never told the cops he had a gun that night because he was looking for a 10 mil payout from the city.


So you object to the term "active shooter" based on literal terms, fair enough. The fact remains that Rittenhouse was an armed person, fleeing the scene of a shooting brandishing a weapon and not surrendering that weapon, so clearly he was an active threat, even if he was not actually firing the weapon. So under those circumstances, those around him are completely within their rights to protect themselves and others by stopping that threat. What your personal opinion is about the character of the victims for action before that night, or in its aftermath, have no bearing on the facts of the event.

If Rittenhouse was actually of the belief he had acted righteously in self defense, after he had killed someone, the appropriate reaction is to stay at the scene, not flee while still brandishing the weapon. From a logical and ethical standpoint, there is no reasonable argument that Kyle Rittenhouse was purely an innocent person simply defending himself against an unarmed person. When you are the provocateur, or even a mutual participant in the escalation of a dangerous situation, self defense is eliminated. It's also important to note that the only people killed and shot that evening were by Rittenhouse, so he was the dangerous element in play. Not the people around him.

The jury thought otherwise


Yeah, thanks to a judge who helped steer it that way—it was in the cards from the outset.

But I am talking morally, logically and in reality. Not simply what a jury of 12 people ruled.

Plenty of guilty walk—and that's clearly what happened here.

Do you really think 12 jurors are that stupid that the judge could "steer" them into an acquittal? You believe this because you're mad about the outcome and it makes you feel better to find a scapegoat.


I think maybe you should ask why YOU suddenly have an interest and a passion about this. It’s always the same. We always get the concerned conservatives telling us why the racist chode needs to be set free. Never here on behalf of anyone else. After a while, it starts to be obvious.

And fwiw, that white supremacist kid, abetted by his racist mother and racist cops and a judge, decided he was going to go play Rambo and get some (you know, the stuff he said with his own mouth that the judge wouldn’t allow in because it might make the jury think he planned to shoot someone). He then got himself in a gunfight after trying to intimidate a bunch of people with his assault rifle, and then shot some more when they bravely tried to stop him.

You can revel about him getting off, but don’t try and BS us about what you’re about here.

Everyone you disagree with is a racist huh? Your post is so biased that it's really not even worth responding to so I won't go any further.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 58208
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:12 am    Post subject:

Racist posts/people are obvious to many except the racist. There's a difference between tribalism and racism.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49227
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:41 am    Post subject:

Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
Look at the videos objectively without political bias. He clearly was defending himself and took out a convicted child molester and mom beater. I have no problem with that.


I watched all the videos at the time devoid of any political perspective at all. Rittenhouse was posturing with a deadly weapon. An unarmed man and he got into a confrontation. Instead of retreating, Rittenhouse turned and killed the unarmed man while he (Rittenhouse) was illegally carrying that weapon. That's not self defense. As for the irrelevant victim blaming. Maybe Rosenbaum was a total ahole, that doesn't change any of the facts of the evening.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Seemed like everyone was out there "posturing" that night, especially Rosenbaum which we see before the shooting incident being extremely hostile and using the "N word" while making threats (witness testimony.) He threw something first which only turned out to be a bag but could've been anything at the time (Molotov cocktail or otherwise, who knows) kept charging and reached for the gun. I'd say it's Darwinism if you charge a man with an AR. Any animal (including humans) will fight back if backed into a corner. He was also attacked by a guy with a skateboard and had a gun pointed at his head. Only fired when being attacked but that's just my opinion.

The gun charge was also thrown out because it wasn't a short barreled rifle so no, it wasn't illegal.


The fact that he had any gun was illegal, because he was a minor, and also illegally carried over state lines. He intended to go there to use his weapon to intimidate and that's exactly what he did. And when unarmed people responded to his threats while he was committing the crime of illegally carrying a weapon he killed Rosenbaum in circumstances that don't equate to self defense. The other person he murdered was Huber (skateboard) , who was trying to disarm an active shooter, so if anyone was acting in self defense, it was Huber. Grosskreutz was a similar situation and though he was armed, at least he has the same argument of self defense against an active shooter. It's also important to note that Grosskreutz never actually fired his weapon, which would indicate he was no the aggressor.

It's clear that Rittenhouse will walk, because the judge is a grossly biased assshole who clearly steered the trial to help an acquittal. But anyone who claims Rittenhouse is just some guy who was engaging in self defense is not being intellectually honest.
The gun was already in Kenosha at Dominick Black's house so it wasn't carried across any "state line" and if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've emptied his magazine. That's just a prosecution buzzword. Nobody out that night was up to any good. Every single person Rittenhouse had an altercation with had a criminal record a mile long including jumpkick man who was recently identified. If you point your gun at someone's head, I'd say that's reason enough for someone to blow your arm off. Again, if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've finished Grosskreutz off. Not to mention Grosskreutz never told the cops he had a gun that night because he was looking for a 10 mil payout from the city.


So you object to the term "active shooter" based on literal terms, fair enough. The fact remains that Rittenhouse was an armed person, fleeing the scene of a shooting brandishing a weapon and not surrendering that weapon, so clearly he was an active threat, even if he was not actually firing the weapon. So under those circumstances, those around him are completely within their rights to protect themselves and others by stopping that threat. What your personal opinion is about the character of the victims for action before that night, or in its aftermath, have no bearing on the facts of the event.

If Rittenhouse was actually of the belief he had acted righteously in self defense, after he had killed someone, the appropriate reaction is to stay at the scene, not flee while still brandishing the weapon. From a logical and ethical standpoint, there is no reasonable argument that Kyle Rittenhouse was purely an innocent person simply defending himself against an unarmed person. When you are the provocateur, or even a mutual participant in the escalation of a dangerous situation, self defense is eliminated. It's also important to note that the only people killed and shot that evening were by Rittenhouse, so he was the dangerous element in play. Not the people around him.

The jury thought otherwise


Yeah, thanks to a judge who helped steer it that way—it was in the cards from the outset.

But I am talking morally, logically and in reality. Not simply what a jury of 12 people ruled.

Plenty of guilty walk—and that's clearly what happened here.

Do you really think 12 jurors are that stupid that the judge could "steer" them into an acquittal? You believe this because you're mad about the outcome and it makes you feel better to find a scapegoat.


It has nothing to do with me being "mad". The judge clearly made rulings on evidence that steered the course of the trial. And that's not just my bitter take, but the widespread opinion of legal experts. Of course judges help shape the narrative of how cases are presented to the jury—that's their whole job. But from a legal and ethical standard, they are supposed keep a balance of neutrality in how they shape that narrative, which was clearly not the case in this instance, as anyone who is going to be intellectually honest about it will acknowledge.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Halflife
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 7767

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:13 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
Look at the videos objectively without political bias. He clearly was defending himself and took out a convicted child molester and mom beater. I have no problem with that.


I watched all the videos at the time devoid of any political perspective at all. Rittenhouse was posturing with a deadly weapon. An unarmed man and he got into a confrontation. Instead of retreating, Rittenhouse turned and killed the unarmed man while he (Rittenhouse) was illegally carrying that weapon. That's not self defense. As for the irrelevant victim blaming. Maybe Rosenbaum was a total ahole, that doesn't change any of the facts of the evening.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Seemed like everyone was out there "posturing" that night, especially Rosenbaum which we see before the shooting incident being extremely hostile and using the "N word" while making threats (witness testimony.) He threw something first which only turned out to be a bag but could've been anything at the time (Molotov cocktail or otherwise, who knows) kept charging and reached for the gun. I'd say it's Darwinism if you charge a man with an AR. Any animal (including humans) will fight back if backed into a corner. He was also attacked by a guy with a skateboard and had a gun pointed at his head. Only fired when being attacked but that's just my opinion.

The gun charge was also thrown out because it wasn't a short barreled rifle so no, it wasn't illegal.


The fact that he had any gun was illegal, because he was a minor, and also illegally carried over state lines. He intended to go there to use his weapon to intimidate and that's exactly what he did. And when unarmed people responded to his threats while he was committing the crime of illegally carrying a weapon he killed Rosenbaum in circumstances that don't equate to self defense. The other person he murdered was Huber (skateboard) , who was trying to disarm an active shooter, so if anyone was acting in self defense, it was Huber. Grosskreutz was a similar situation and though he was armed, at least he has the same argument of self defense against an active shooter. It's also important to note that Grosskreutz never actually fired his weapon, which would indicate he was no the aggressor.

It's clear that Rittenhouse will walk, because the judge is a grossly biased assshole who clearly steered the trial to help an acquittal. But anyone who claims Rittenhouse is just some guy who was engaging in self defense is not being intellectually honest.
The gun was already in Kenosha at Dominick Black's house so it wasn't carried across any "state line" and if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've emptied his magazine. That's just a prosecution buzzword. Nobody out that night was up to any good. Every single person Rittenhouse had an altercation with had a criminal record a mile long including jumpkick man who was recently identified. If you point your gun at someone's head, I'd say that's reason enough for someone to blow your arm off. Again, if Rittenhouse was an "active shooter," he would've finished Grosskreutz off. Not to mention Grosskreutz never told the cops he had a gun that night because he was looking for a 10 mil payout from the city.


So you object to the term "active shooter" based on literal terms, fair enough. The fact remains that Rittenhouse was an armed person, fleeing the scene of a shooting brandishing a weapon and not surrendering that weapon, so clearly he was an active threat, even if he was not actually firing the weapon. So under those circumstances, those around him are completely within their rights to protect themselves and others by stopping that threat. What your personal opinion is about the character of the victims for action before that night, or in its aftermath, have no bearing on the facts of the event.

If Rittenhouse was actually of the belief he had acted righteously in self defense, after he had killed someone, the appropriate reaction is to stay at the scene, not flee while still brandishing the weapon. From a logical and ethical standpoint, there is no reasonable argument that Kyle Rittenhouse was purely an innocent person simply defending himself against an unarmed person. When you are the provocateur, or even a mutual participant in the escalation of a dangerous situation, self defense is eliminated. It's also important to note that the only people killed and shot that evening were by Rittenhouse, so he was the dangerous element in play. Not the people around him.

The jury thought otherwise


Yeah, thanks to a judge who helped steer it that way—it was in the cards from the outset.

But I am talking morally, logically and in reality. Not simply what a jury of 12 people ruled.

Plenty of guilty walk—and that's clearly what happened here.

Do you really think 12 jurors are that stupid that the judge could "steer" them into an acquittal? You believe this because you're mad about the outcome and it makes you feel better to find a scapegoat.


It has nothing to do with me being "mad". The judge clearly made rulings on evidence that steered the course of the trial. And that's not just my bitter take, but the widespread opinion of legal experts. Of course judges help shape the narrative of how cases are presented to the jury—that's their whole job. But from a legal and ethical standard, they are supposed keep a balance of neutrality in how they shape that narrative, which was clearly not the case in this instance, as anyone who is going to be intellectually honest about it will acknowledge.

This goes for everyone involved in that scene. If you are going somewhere and you think you need a gun to protect yourself and actually still make the decision to go, that alone should put someone on an unable to own a gun list.

He decided that he was prepared to take someone's life. Instead of saying I'll use better judgment and just chill here.

There is absolutely no reason to walk around strapped.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49227
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:30 pm    Post subject:

Quote:

Everyone you disagree with is a racist huh? Your post is so biased that it's really not even worth responding to so I won't go any further.


Whatever is behind one’s satisfaction that Rittenhouse got off, it’s a horrible reflection on one’s character and integrity.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Pau Gasol's Beard
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2009
Posts: 1410

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:12 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Quote:

Everyone you disagree with is a racist huh? Your post is so biased that it's really not even worth responding to so I won't go any further.


Whatever is behind one’s satisfaction that Rittenhouse got off, it’s a horrible reflection on one’s character and integrity.

I'm not even a conservative but this is typical far left progressive liberal drivel. Most people who virtue signal like this are doing so "performatively" just like Rachel Nichols. Just saying....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49227
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:00 pm    Post subject:

Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Quote:

Everyone you disagree with is a racist huh? Your post is so biased that it's really not even worth responding to so I won't go any further.


Whatever is behind one’s satisfaction that Rittenhouse got off, it’s a horrible reflection on one’s character and integrity.

I'm not even a conservative but this is typical far left progressive liberal drivel. Most people who virtue signal like this are doing so "performatively" just like Rachel Nichols. Just saying....


Excuse me? I didn’t put any political labeling in to my comment, but you sure did. There’s no “virtue signaling” in my comment. It’s quite simple, Rittenhouse is on record as saying he wanted to shoot looters. He then travelled to a different state to do “defend” property that had nothing to do with him and violated the law in doing so. As a result, he got his wish by instigating violence and killed two people.

I’m sorry, but if you’re going to be the type of person who defends that behavior, step up and own it rather than take a totally baseless and cowardly position where you are somehow the victim of “virtue signaling”. I mean come on, have some kind of integrity.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 58208
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is consider a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:37 pm    Post subject:

Pau Gasol's Beard gittin owned!
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 10275
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:04 am    Post subject:

Regardless of what you think of Ritttenhouse or this case specifically

Why does America allow high school children to own machine guns and point them at others? Especially those who were bullied in school...

Is a 17 year old child's brain and social experiences right to be putting machine guns in the hands of and telling them to go out and point them at people?

Reading about the individual he seems like his heart tried to be in the right places... but going to a Trump Rally to be front row .. and getting speeding ticket and NO license the week before killing these people.. leaving school due to bullying..not the right 17 year old to own this weapon

Being bullied and owning a machine gun and then carrying it out in public...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
FernieBee
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 3413
Location: 921SD

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:04 pm    Post subject:

Chubby-faced punk with a rifle . . . lucky he didn't end up in prison . . . would've ended up being the designated salad-tosser.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Pau Gasol's Beard
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2009
Posts: 1410

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:11 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard gittin owned!

You're the one defending this bunch of motley crew scumbags

"Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender who was out on bond for a domestic abuse battery accusation and was caught on video acting aggressively earlier that night. Huber was a felon convicted in a strangulation case who was recently accused of domestic abuse. Grosskreutz was convicted of a crime for use of a firearm while intoxicated and was armed with a handgun when shot (he testified in court that he carried it concealed despite having an expired permit; Wisconsin law requires a valid permit to carry a weapon concealed.)"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49227
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:49 am    Post subject:

Pau Gasol's Beard wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Pau Gasol's Beard gittin owned!

You're the one defending this bunch of motley crew scumbags

"Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender who was out on bond for a domestic abuse battery accusation and was caught on video acting aggressively earlier that night. Huber was a felon convicted in a strangulation case who was recently accused of domestic abuse. Grosskreutz was convicted of a crime for use of a firearm while intoxicated and was armed with a handgun when shot (he testified in court that he carried it concealed despite having an expired permit; Wisconsin law requires a valid permit to carry a weapon concealed.)"


Classic strawman argument, and in this case a pretty of disgusting one. Discussing the potential guilt of Rittenhouse has absolutely nothing to do with defending the three people he shot, and it's classless to try and equate it to defending criminal and immoral acts. Their pasts have nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Rittenhouse.

And the implication that Rittenhouse's actions are somehow justified because the people he shot had nefarious pasts exemplifies the bogus vigilante justice attitude that has no place in civilized society.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 72, 73, 74  Next
Page 73 of 74
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB