Antifa Terrorist Convicted of 4 Counts of Attempted Manslaughter Gets No Prison Time

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Sounds like he was just "standing his ground".

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

I guess it's whose point of view that matters.

Do you get paid by the DNC and Pfizer? I can't believe anyone could have such consistently bad takes on events as you. Between you and Zombies I don't know who's worse. Always entertaining though.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AutomateThis1v2

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: chr0naut

You looking to make the most idiotic statement on this thread? Another strawman attempt. No comparison between the two. The person in the OP shot his fellow protesters in his spree. Rittenhouse didn't hit any bystanders, he hit his targets.

Well, then Rittenhouse failed to murder one of his victims, so there's that.

And that would mean that it was 2 counts of murder, and one of attempted murder, rather than attempted manslaughter.

And they let him walk?

He defended himself from people who were attacking him.

Was the driver of the vehicle attempting to run people over or were they trying to flee from the situation?

Don't be ignorant.

He went to somewhere a significant distance from where he lived, where there was anticipated to be conflict, taking weapons.

Before he was threatened, he was organizing things so he could shoot at people. It was his intention to shoot people that significantly proceeded the threat.

He killed two people and seriously injured a third.

In a fairer country, all those who take up arms against other unarmed people would be considered criminal. Two of Rittenhouse's victims were unarmed.

Both of these shooters should be doing time.

That logic is exactly why you shouldn't be a lawyer in the US lmao.

Your bias is showing. If that were true he'd be in jail, but go ahead, I'm sure you think it's just because he's a priviledge white male.

Stick to what you know.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: chr0naut

You looking to make the most idiotic statement on this thread? Another strawman attempt. No comparison between the two. The person in the OP shot his fellow protesters in his spree. Rittenhouse didn't hit any bystanders, he hit his targets.

Well, then Rittenhouse failed to murder one of his victims, so there's that.

And that would mean that it was 2 counts of murder, and one of attempted murder, rather than attempted manslaughter.

And they let him walk?

it was a successful self defense argument to the jury.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Sounds like he was just "standing his ground".

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

I guess it's whose point of view that matters.

You are amazing! Just when I think you gave peaked and said the dumbest thing possible, you find a way to surpass previous idiotic posts. This one must be your magnum opus.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: chr0naut

You looking to make the most idiotic statement on this thread? Another strawman attempt. No comparison between the two. The person in the OP shot his fellow protesters in his spree. Rittenhouse didn't hit any bystanders, he hit his targets.

Well, then Rittenhouse failed to murder one of his victims, so there's that.

And that would mean that it was 2 counts of murder, and one of attempted murder, rather than attempted manslaughter.

And they let him walk?

You don't understand how the justice system in the USA works. Kyle was charged and had to stand trial in front of a Jury of his peers. They found him innocent as he was acting in self defense.

Sammie was also charged and tried by a jury of his peers. But wait, what's this? The outcome of the jury was different, he was found guilty! That sounds completely different than the first guy.

Or is that not correct?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: chr0naut

You looking to make the most idiotic statement on this thread? Another strawman attempt. No comparison between the two. The person in the OP shot his fellow protesters in his spree. Rittenhouse didn't hit any bystanders, he hit his targets.

Well, then Rittenhouse failed to murder one of his victims, so there's that.

And that would mean that it was 2 counts of murder, and one of attempted murder, rather than attempted manslaughter.

And they let him walk?

You don't understand how the justice system in the USA works. Kyle was charged and had to stand trial in front of a Jury of his peers. They found him innocent as he was acting in self defense.

Sammie was also charged and tried by a jury of his peers. But wait, what's this? The outcome of the jury was different, he was found guilty! That sounds completely different than the first guy.

Or is that not correct?

He killed more than once, both of those he killed were not carrying firearms.

He was using a firearm which he was not legally entitled to carry, and had also illegally taken across state lines.

The first man Rosenbaum, that Rittenhouse shot at (4 times) was running away from him at the time of the killing shot, which was in the back and perforated Rosenbaum's right lung and liver. The only weapon with which Rosenbaum could have attacked Rittenhouse was a plastic bag containing a toothbrush and a tube of toothpaste. He was carrying this because he had just been released from hospital and had joined the protest. He posed no deadly threat to Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse could not have been defending himself from Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum may have been trying to defend himself and others by trying to disarm someone threatening them with a rifle. This makes Rittenhouse the attacker.

The others that Rittenhouse shot at were definitely trying to disarm an active shooter.

It is clear that the Rittenhouse trial was a travesty of justice, as was the OP's case.

In other countries, there is serious consequence of the taking of another person's life, even if you claim that it was in self defense and it is upheld in court. America's problem is that that cannot seem to conceive that it is trivially possible to orchestrate murder, and in this case, multiple murders, by suggesting that it was in self defense.

These sort of paper-thin legal defense outcomes are an indication of the injustice and rot of the US legal system.

Rittenhouse's acts were clearly premeditated and pre-organised. There were a string of illegal actions, all with one particular end-goal in mind. It may have possibly been in self-defense at the time, but even so, that was planned, and acted upon, ahead of the fatal acts.

I find it a bit absurd that you use one legal result to justify a dodgy legal process, in denigration of another, similar case, using the same process, and haven't figured out that both legal outcomes are not just.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: infolurker

How much time did Rittenhouse serve?

How much time should someone serve for successful self defense against people saying they will kill you and charging you? That's how much he got.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I think you mistyped. You wrote victims when you meant to write attackers. When someone says they are going to kill you and chases you down you're a soon to be dead idiot if you don't defend yourself.

The first two people that Rittenhouse shot and killed, had no firearms on them.

The very first one only had a plastic bag with a toothbrush and a tube of toothpaste in it, which he threw, futilely, at Rittenhouse.

Then they were not very smart to chase after and attack someone armed with a much better weapon. There is zero way anyone can know what weapon their attacker has. If someone attacks you, you use the best weapon available to keep yourself alive.

They did not die because they were victims, they died because they failed miserably at being violent aggressive thugs. They did try though.

Oh, and you are dead wrong, I remembered from the trial the toothpaste guy chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun, likely to use it to kill Rittenhouse.

During the trial, Rittenhouse and another witness said that Rosenbaum had reached for Rittenhouse's gun.

Then peaceful victim 2 chased him down and assaulted him with a skateboard.

"He pushed me out of the way and ran off. I tried to grab him," Gittings told CNN last year.

Huber eventually caught up to Rittenhouse and tried to stop him by hitting him with a skateboard. But the single blow was not enough to bring Rittenhouse down.

Just a regular saint.

Huber had spent time in prison twice, first for violating probation after strangling his brother and again for kicking his sister, the Post reported.

Then the most friendly of them all.

Grosskreutz said he was not intentionally pointing his weapon at Rittenhouse, but during cross-examination agreed that it was pointed at Rittenhouse at the moment he was shot.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: infolurker

How much time did Rittenhouse serve?

How much time should someone serve for successful self defense against people saying they will kill you and charging you? That's how much he got.

The truth of the matter is that he was armed and prepared for it.

And, he did the killing.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: infolurker

How much time did Rittenhouse serve?

How much time should someone serve for successful self defense against people saying they will kill you and charging you? That's how much he got.

The truth of the matter is that he was armed and prepared for it.

And, he did the killing.

Is there something wrong about being prepared? Should they be unprepared?

Who chased who?

His crime seems to be not letting them kill him as they planned and verbally told him they would.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Sounds like he was just "standing his ground".

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

I guess it's whose point of view that matters.

You consider your opinion “middle insight”? Talk about delusion.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: infolurker

How much time did Rittenhouse serve?

How much time should someone serve for successful self defense against people saying they will kill you and charging you? That's how much he got.

The truth of the matter is that he was armed and prepared for it.

And, he did the killing.

The truth of the matter is that even though he killed people the judge and jury determined he was justified in killing in self-defense.

Try and twist it however you want, but those are the facts.

In the US you can kill in self-defense if you fear for your life. Just having a gun isn't a reason to be attacked. If you don't like it then stay over on your side of the planet.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1v2

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: infolurker

How much time did Rittenhouse serve?

How much time should someone serve for successful self defense against people saying they will kill you and charging you? That's how much he got.

The truth of the matter is that he was armed and prepared for it.

And, he did the killing.

The truth of the matter is that even though he killed people the judge and jury determined he was justified in killing in self-defense.

Try and twist it however you want, but those are the facts.

In the US you can kill in self-defense if you fear for your life. Just having a gun isn't a reason to be attacked. If you don't like it then stay over on your side of the planet.

In most of Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc, self defense does not entirely remove culpability. Let me explain why:

Imagine a scenario where someone invites someone else into their home, and prepares the scenario so that it appears that the person invited in was an attacker, perhaps allegedly to steal or to rape. Then the home owner murders the "home invader" and sets the scene so that all the evidence looks like they were attacked and defending themselves. If the investigating officers and the courts do not treat the death with a high degree of suspicion, and look for what may have really happened, the murderer gets off, and probably even gets accolades from a deceived and gullible public.

That's not justice, that is a crime compounded by a legal system that is more about 'feelz' than crime prevention.

a reply to: chr0naut

You don't need to explain anything to me. I'm very familiar with gun and self defense laws here in the US.

The same happens here. Shooting a "home invader" isn't a get away with murder card. There is still an investigation.

Don't argue about feelz when your argument is based on feelz.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Sounds like he was just "standing his ground".

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

I guess it's whose point of view that matters.

Sarcasm?

originally posted by: loufo
and why in god's name can anyone (even mentally unstable or violent people) walk around with a loaded potentially lethal weapon in america?

Open Carry is legal in every state now. The Supreme Court ruled against a Chicago law for that.

a reply to: chr0naut



Dude I had to log back in for the first time in years after seeing this to reply. That is the absolute lamest far reaching attempt at a comparison i've ever seen. You've been beyond wrong and very ignorant in everything you've said about this subject. All you've done is spouted MSNBC level opinions on the whole thing. He WORKED in that city, lived around 30 min away, which isn't uncommon around big metropolitan areas even if its in a place like that, right on the border. The boss bought it for him and kept it at his house but he was of age to own the gun. He was protecting a business from RIOTERS and giving first aid to Protesters, ya know, because there is a difference and BOTH were rampant during the Summer of Love. The only reason he got attacked instead of the other people guarding their businesses is because he was a kid, aka an easy target for stupid psychos using the protests to loot everything. They saw him and thought they could just bum rush him and take his gun. Look at everyone who attacked him. Bigger adult males, maybe not so much the skater asshole.

They attacked him and he didn't fire until a shot was FIRED AT HIM. Audio and Video prove that was what happened plain as day. He was already running from them when the shot was fired so he fired back and hit the bald pedo that had a chain since he was at the front of the mob chasing him. He didn't fire again until he was legit getting bashed with a skateboard and a gun was pointed at him visibly. Then he got up and immediately turned himself in to the cops, hands raised high in the air and nowhere near the gun.

Any opposition of those proven facts of the attacks is just bias and projection. Delusion really.

Lastly, The man HIMSELF explained that he hated that it even happened and that nobody should call him a hero or praise him for it. If that kid was any other race, there wouldn't be any opposition to what he did. And if you think the cops would have shot him when he turned himself in, don't forget the black kid that shot up the school in texas recently was taken in willingly without incident.

Just do yourself a favor and admit that you were lied to about him and face facts that your bias is affecting your so fervent opinion on what happened. Being wrong happens but continuing to deny the facts is just dumb.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

You might want to look up "stand your ground" statutes before posting something as stupid as that post.

Even you can, or maybe you can't, see the difference.