DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Rittenhouse Trial

Sorry but breaking down a gate, opening a gate, holding a gate or walking through a gate on Private Property is Trespassing.

They broke the law and no one knows how many other laws they were about to break.

in that entire neighborhood? In the weeks preceding this event multiple police officers had been shot at protests, David Durn had been shot for confronting looters, property was defaced, fireworks were shot off at people and buildings. I assume if that happened in your town, then it made it's way to your doorstep, you would just assume "Well, I'll just wait until they start getting violent, then I'll do something."

Exactly, which is why nobody got shot at.

Now, back to Rittenhouse. I thought the left's position was always to avoid violence and de-escalate if at all possible? Yet on this night, we have these armed civilians guarding a car dealership (why isn't really important).. and you have this angry mob coming down the street, not really heading anywhere specific that I'm aware of... and seeing these armed folks, instead of making the decision to take their protest in a different direction, decide to confront the armed people, up to the point of physically attacking them.. then when a few people get shot, it's 100% the armed groups fault for being there and not the mobs fault for pushing the issue and initiating the violence..

If it appeared on my door step? Yes, if protestors came on my property or were trying to destroy my property. Not if they're marching down the sidewalk. No, I don't think any rational person would try to confront people marching down a sidewalk by pointing firearms at them. I don't think you believe that either. And these same protestors stayed on that sidewalk during the entire walk through that neighborhood where nobody else tried to act like Rambo and confront them with guns.

I think you may wish to look a little deeper into the Rittenhouse situation. He wasn't even close to the dealership he claimed to be "protecting" when the shooting occurred. I'll ask you again, if you were on that street and someone was waving an AR15 around, at what point would you feel like the one being threatened?

Sorry but since your argument fell apart now you're trying to divert attention away from that.

Someone shoplifting a candy bar is breaking the law too, that doesn't mean you can take it on yourself to point a gun at them. So you decided to shift it to "no one knows how many other laws they were about to break." Now you are trying to rationalize pointing guns at people for "things you think they might do".

I notice you refuse to address the fact that the McCloskey's entered a guilty plea. That's not what innocent people do is it?

I think you are taking this out of the context of what had been going on in St. Louis (and around the country) for 4 weeks or so prior... it's a nice Sunny day in my neighborhood today, things in the greater Raleigh area have been peaceful for a long time, if a group of 500 people were to march down my street today, chanting and yelling about some social or political issue, it would be a different vibe than what was going on that day. I would not go out into the yard with a show of force.. but I can almost guarantee you that I would be sitting inside my home, watching through the window, gun in hand.... does that make me less than a rational person?

Using your "rational person" standard.. when confronted by an armed militia of people, unless this is an actual combat situation where you are prepared to die for your cause, if leaving is an option, a rational person would leave... not initiate a fight. The problem is, and we know this to be a fact, otherwise rational people don't always make rational decisions when they are part of a mob. Just like I wouldn't count on an untrained, adrenaline filled 17 year old with an AR-15 to make rational decisions.

500 people? It certainly didn't look like 500 people from anything I saw. And no, I think being armed and ready to act if need be is a rational thing to do. Going outside and confronting people who aren't even on your property is not. Once again, as much as you seem to be trying to make the point they were somehow in the right by their actions, even you admit you wouldn't have done what they did.

Only those people weren't facing an "armed militia". Rittenhouse was pretty much by himself at the time this occurred waving a gun around. It seems you are sidestepping the reality that those protestors were quite possibly as much or more feeling threatened by Rittenhouse as he was of them. The difference is Rittenhouse was in the very process of committing gun crimes when this happened. I'm still not quite sure how people can keep avoiding the fact that if Rittenhouse hadn't been committing gun crimes none of this could have ever happened.

That's because what you saw was mostly the protestors pointing their cell phones at the McCloskeys and not what was behind them. I seen reports from "several hundred" up to 500 or more...

Yea but I don't claim to be the final arbiter or what is "rational"... just because they did it different than I would have doesn't mean they are less rational. If I did it my way and bricks started flying through my windows and my house was overrun, some would say I was irrational to expect them to behave themselves.. the truly "rational" decision is usually only known once an event is over.

You keep using the expression waving a gun around.. as I understand the sequence of events, rittenhouse wasn't waving a gun around, he was running, he was running away from Rosenbaum, who was chasing him and throwing things at him. He was trying to avoid a potentially violent encounter.... but the violent mob member continued to pursue him... so back to your point about how "threatened" they felt?.... If you feel threatened by a random guy in the street with an AR-15 who is running away from you, do you really chase after him? Really? Is that a rational response by an unarmed person who was just out for a peaceful protest? then during the chase another violent mob member, Ziminski, fired the first shot, a warning shot (he said) into the air. Rittenhouse stopped and not knowing where the shot came from or who it was aimed at, aimed his gun at Rosenbaum... So he's been threatened, he's been chased, he's had things thrown at him, then he hears a shot... and NOW he finally aims his gun. But that wasn't enough, did Rosenbaum take that as a good reason to let it go? Heck no, after a brief verbal confrontation, he initiated the fight and tried to take the gun off of him. Then, and only then, was he shot.

So we can agree all day long that Rittenhouse had no business being where he was at the time and that he broke a couple gun laws... but what happened after that, I don't see how you can pin it on him... he's not some kind of a hero but he's not a murderer either.

We will probably get to test that theory soon. Antifa may even organize into battalions. I mean with over 23 million members nationwide; we are the biggest military in the world. (And yes, arch those number are complete BS, or are they?)...

From what I have seen of this trial, the Prosecution has blown it by overcharging the kid and asking questions of his witnesses that go in favor of the kid.

People are dismissing the Prosecutor as being inept and the Judge corrupt. Ticking off the Judge by asking questions not allowed under the law, which he well knows, is interesting.

But the Prosecution is not dumb. He is trying to have a mistrial declared so they can have a do-over in the future with different charges.

He will be perfectly happy to lose this trial.

Afterwards, the Nation will explode in violence, which our leadership will irresponsibly refuse to stop.
President Biden has already referred to the kid as a white supremacist. The Media is calling the kid a murderer.
The stage is set.

Let me try this again and hopefully you won't ignore it this time. I know you said you weren't the arbiter of what is rational. But do you think gun paws are? Do you think trying to keep going to bat for people who know they're guilty and plead guilty to a gun crime is rational?

Mark and Patricia McCloskey plead guilty to lesser charges in gun case

The couple who went viral for pointing weapons at protesters in front of their Central West End home entered a plea deal Thursday

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/c.../63-59f745ba-7b5d-4644-a01e-49e74f276a0e

They copped to a lesser plea and you seem to keep making excuses for their criminal behavior.

As for Rittenhouse. This is the type of thing that led up to the shooting.


A few frames of a movie isn't going to explain the plot line.

Rittenhouse went to that location packing a semi auto rifle... To me that smacks of intent,,, End of discussion.. Let's introduce that punk to "ole Sparky"!

While we are at it,, how about we have a strong discussion with the judge... Seriously,, can't call the victims victims, Ringtone on his phone a Trump staple at Rallies, and congrats to a Defense witness.. How freaking bias can this fool actually be

Those rioters were no victims. They were actually scum of the earth human beings.

They may have been but it wasn’t that punk’s job to be judge, jury, and executioner.

They should not have attacked the kid! It is called stand your ground. He actually retreated from the threats each time and they keep attacking. He attacked in self defense and the threats were eliminated.

Wrong on all levels except for him possibly being a punk.

Murder is Murder... And Rittenhouse is scum also....

He’s neo Nazi scum.

So going to a location where this is civil unrest packing a weapon like his is NOT intent? Is that the crap you are shoveling?

Can't call a victim a victim is OK with you? Ringtone on the Judges Phone being a Trump staple is OK with you? Congratulating a defense witness in Open Court is OK with you?

I can't speak to intent. Nor can you. The evidence shows him being chased and threatened before shooting rather than taking a position and acting like a sniper. Why he went down there, I couldn't tell you other than the guy might be a bit stupid, but then that isn't a crime. I think we both agree there are a lot of stupid people in this world. The same could probably be said for the people who got shot. It would have been far smarter for them to stay home as well.

Calling them victims by the prosecution would be much the same as the defense calling them criminals. You really don't know the tag that applies until the trial has concluded. Just trying to explain the way it is...calling them the deceased or wounded would be a factual statement.

As to ringtones...I don't know anything about it but it really has nothing to do with the judge being able to conduct a fair trial.

Y'all keep tellin' the boy that, all the way to the gallows. But it's all good 'cause the rigged the jury. He could have sat there and said he killed those lefties and got clean away with it.

A kid committing a crime by being a minor who was open carrying had a right to stand his ground? If he wasn't engaged in a criminal act playing Rambo in the first place there would have been no need for anyone to claim they were standing their ground. His crime set the stage for the victims to be murdered. That's scum since you brought it up. He was the one engaged in criminal activity and you call his victims scum.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he stood his ground AT HOME. He was a punk who left home looking for trouble. Now, at the age of 18, he's a defendant in a murder trial. Guess he found what he was looking for.

He's a killer, no matter how much of a fan you are.

So a woman doing heroin behind a dumpster deserves to be raped? She was breaking the law, right?

Of course he deserves to stand his ground. By breaking the law he is not obligated to stand there and let people beat him to death. Do you even read some of this trash that you type? "Victims were murdered" lmao. I guess that would fall in line with OCDs constant "Darwin" comments about people that aren't vaccinated then... Actually, even worse, I would thing that chasing someone down who's armed with a semi-automatic weapon would be a lot more dangerous than Covid. Yep, that would definitely earn a Darwin award.

Slam dunk win for Rittenhouse. The prosecution are clowns.

What a reach of epic proportions. If she was high waving a gun around in a crowd those around her may consider her a danger to those around her. Just like some kid playing the part of a wannabe Rambo. As you just described, she posed no threat.


While I don't agree we should let the Darwin theory of survival play out, which is why I continue to advocate doing all we can to greatly decrease the death rate, it does seem like that will be the end result for a lot of Americans.



Actually what's worse is if the kid hadn't been breaking the law and traveled there to break the law, nobody would be dead and he wouldn't be on trial. But keep trying to avoid that.

You said since he was breaking the law, he had no right to defend himself.

Is that what you believe?

I believe those around him had just as much right to defend themselves against a a kid waving a gun around. Considering both parties had a right to defend themselves, I look at who was committing a criminal act at the time. That would be Rittenhouse. As I said and you have once again failed to address, had he have not been committing a crime at the time, there would have been no rifle and none of those people would be dead.

From what I saw, one was chasing the other. That isn't standing your ground.

Why did he go there
He should have stayed at home safe
Reckless idiot

We agree.

There is nothing to address, you've said it -- literally -- 500 times.

Crime or no crime, he has a right to defend himself. Cut and dried, end of story. You can think it shouldn't be that way, and whine about it , page after page after page like a broken record. That will never change the fact.

Was he actually waving the gun around or just open carrying? There's a big difference. Were the protesters defending themselves by chasing him down? It sounds like you're embellishing.

It seems that by your rationale, anyone can insert themselves, armed to the gills to "protect" themselves, into a hostile environment .... when they feel threated they can legally stand their ground and start shooting whoever they feel threatened by.

What am I missing?

Reality.

I said nothing of the sort. I merely said he had the right to defend himself. Pit insists that because he was committing a crime he thereby forfeits any right to defend himself. You're just adding theatrics to a narrative that does not exist, at least not with me. I think there is a good chance he is guilty of manslaughter. But it's not up to me, it's up to the court.

Since you want to make sure you're not missing anything... a few posters think he is automatically guilty of "murdering victims" (victims that were chasing a guy down the street to beat him, while he's armed with a semi-auto weapon, can't make up that lunacy), simply because he should have never been there with a gun. They think that automatic guilt should result in a seventeen-year-old in the electric chair.

Some people don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, especially if there is a political component. Give it time and the Gulag system will be imposed in this country where we send off our political prisoners.

That would be so much different had he been defending his home.. But this kid crossed state lines and like you said, Went looking for trouble and he found it.. He says he was carrying this weapon because it "looked cool"..

I think he said he bought it partly because it looked cool.

Just to be clear.

It sounds like many of you are trying to diminish the fact this all happened during the commission of a crime. He was committing a crime by being a minor open carrying a firearm. Rewarding a criminal is not what our society is supposed to do. Excusing the fact he killed people during the commission of a crime is not what our laws say we're supposed to do. And yes, anyone watching some kid walking around with an AR-15, if a normal person, would feel a reasonable threat. I do believe if he was not acting like Rambo and committing a crime that he would ever have been attacked and there would not have been people killed. It seems many of you refuse to hold the kid accountable for that and as such justify all of this. The popular opinion among some of you seems to be that people intervening in someone during the commission of a crime are the perpetrators and the one committing the crime had the right to take actions he could have only taken by committing a crime in the first place.

You making senseless rants won't change the fact this kid should never have been carrying that gun in the first place. You see, you think gun laws only count when it supports something you agree with. Had someone who was a convicted felon been carrying a gun killed those same people under the same circumstances, would you still be upholding him? Probably so considering the corpses would still belong to people you don't like. As I've said, if the kid hadn't dressed himself up like Rambo, went some place he didn't even live and carry an AR-15, an illegal act, none of this would ever have happened. To you none of that makes any difference. The only reason that is, is because you only think the law applies when it supports something you agree with. You act like the kid setting the stage for all of this by his illegal actions mean nothing. Acting like people have no right to speak out about it says more about you than it does me.

Everything in the above post is just verbal vomit translated to the written word. None of it even applies to me or anything I've ever posted here. Get your LWL and be done with this, I'll go talk to the dog.