The Outrage Thread

[Sheik]

I remember watching this whole Rittenhouse thing unfold in real time while watching rioting streams.

I never thought he’d even go to trial. He was 100% in the right. He decided to defend himself.

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[NoDak]

This is all just setting up another reason to fire up the 'ol outrage/riots machine.

Hell, anybody that wasn't legally blind and had half a brain (and didn't have an agenda to follow) that saw the footage could see this was clearly self defense.

 

[Cotton]

This is all just setting up another reason to fire up the 'ol outrage/riots machine.

Hell, anybody that wasn't legally blind and had half a brain (and didn't have an agenda to follow) that saw the footage could see this was clearly self defense.

Especially with the new FBI footage that has come out.

 

[Smitty]

I remember watching this whole Rittenhouse thing unfold in real time while watching rioting streams.

I never thought he’d even go to trial. He was 100% in the right. He decided to defend himself.

Just like the Trayvon Martin thing, except in that case, what the left wanted to be illegal was that someone got shot after mean old George Zimmerman decided to profile someone. There entire case hinged on "Zimmerman was in the wrong for profiling, so when Martin jumped him and got shot, it's Zimmerman's fault for profiling him."

Now with the Rittenhouse case, they want him in jail because he brought a gun to fight back against dangerous criminals who were breaking the law while "protesting," and the left doesn't want those people to have to fear for their lives while they commit crimes. Therefore they believe Rittenhouse should be punished for violation of their culture code, not cause he actually committed murder.

Just like Zimmerman, in the Rittenhouse case the left wants him punished because someone died misbehaving while Rittenhouse was pushing back on their misbehavior, but the left thinks it's flock should be free from consequence. It can attack whoever it wants if it's doing it in the name of stopping conservative politics and you aren't allowed to fight back or you are arrested and put on trial for murder.

It's like they want the felony murder rule to be applied to actions that aren't felonies. The felony murder rule is that if someone is killed while you are committing a felony, you are guilty of the murder whether you were trying to make the kill or not. Ie, if you are robbing a bank, you tie people up, put them in a room and lock them in while you rob the bank, and then completely unrelated the ceiling collapses in that room and kills them, you are guilty of murder.

The left wants this concept to apply to it's social justice policies. You instigate a profiling and someone dies as a result (even if they attacked you), they want you guilty of murder. You bring a legal rifle to a protest and someone attacks you and gets killed, you are guilty of murder. Why? Shouldn't have had the gun there, you evil conservative. How dare you exercise your constitutional rights?

 

[Cotton]

Just like the Trayvon Martin thing, except in that case, what the left wanted to be illegal was that someone got shot after mean old George Zimmerman decided to profile someone. There entire case hinged on "Zimmerman was in the wrong for profiling, so when Martin jumped him and got shot, it's Zimmerman's fault for profiling him."

Now with the Rittenhouse case, they want him in jail because he brought a gun to fight back against dangerous criminals who were breaking the law while "protesting," and the left doesn't want those people to have to fear for their lives while they commit crimes. Therefore they believe Rittenhouse should be punished for violation of their culture code, not cause he actually committed murder.

Just like Zimmerman, in the Rittenhouse case the left wants him punished because someone died misbehaving while Rittenhouse was pushing back on their misbehavior, but the left thinks it's flock should be free from consequence. It can attack whoever it wants if it's doing it in the name of stopping conservative politics and you aren't allowed to fight back or you are arrested and put on trial for murder.

Sounds very familiar to some big events that happened in the 1940s.

 

[Sheik]

Just like the Trayvon Martin thing, except in that case, what the left wanted to be illegal was that someone got shot after mean old George Zimmerman decided to profile someone. There entire case hinged on "Zimmerman was in the wrong for profiling, so when Martin jumped him and got shot, it's Zimmerman's fault for profiling him."

Now with the Rittenhouse case, they want him in jail because he brought a gun to fight back against dangerous criminals who were breaking the law while "protesting," and the left doesn't want those people to have to fear for their lives while they commit crimes. Therefore they believe Rittenhouse should be punished for violation of their culture code, not cause he actually committed murder.

Just like Zimmerman, in the Rittenhouse case the left wants him punished because someone died misbehaving while Rittenhouse was pushing back on their misbehavior, but the left thinks it's flock should be free from consequence. It can attack whoever it wants if it's doing it in the name of stopping conservative politics and you aren't allowed to fight back or you are arrested and put on trial for murder.

It's like they want the felony murder rule to be applied to actions that aren't felonies. The felony murder rule is that if someone is killed while you are committing a felony, you are guilty of the murder whether you were trying to make the kill or not. Ie, if you are robbing a bank, you tie people up, put them in a room and lock them in while you rob the bank, and then completely unrelated the ceiling collapses in that room and kills them, you are guilty of murder.

The left wants this concept to apply to it's social justice policies. You instigate a profiling and someone dies as a result (even if they attacked you), they want you guilty of murder. You bring a legal rifle to a protest and someone attacks you and gets killed, you are guilty of murder. Why? Shouldn't have had the gun there, you evil conservative. How dare you exercise your constitutional rights?

It’s pretty troubling the way the media has these panels with obvious leftists that just blatantly disregard facts while trying to shape public perception of what actually happened.

The trial has been going for a week or better? One of the first myths dispelled was the “17 year old crossed state lines with a semi automatic weapon.”, CNN and others have been saying that since it happened. Testimony has shown that the gun was purchased in Kenosha and never left Kenosha. It was stored in a safe at his buddies’s home in Kenosha.

That’s been known for a week or so as fact, yet people all over Twitter are still talking about how nothing matters because everything starts with a 17 year old breaking the law by carrying the rifle over state lines. They hear testimony like yesterday where a guy admits he wasn’t fired upon by Rittenhouse until he actually pulled a glock on him. Doesn’t matter because CNN won’t correct the record.

CNN and the likes should be held criminally responsible when Rittenhouse is fully acquitted and rioting breaks out in Kenosha again.

But they won’t be.

 

[Smitty]

Apparently Rittenhouse did very well on the stand in his own defense today.

 

[bbgun]

He took the stand? I've watched a lot of Perry Mason, and that's almost unheard of.

 

[Cotton]

He took the stand? I've watched a lot of Perry Mason, and that's almost unheard of.

It's very risky. Especially since they seemed to have the trial already in hand.

 

[Smitty]

Also the Judge is ripping the prosecution's ass.

 

[Smitty]

 

[Smitty]

Of course Twitter's main take away isn't that the Prosecution is committing consitutional violations but instead "This judge is biased! durrr"

That's how you know Twitter didn't go to law school and has never practiced law.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Of course Twitter's main take away isn't that the Prosecution is committing consitutional violations but instead "This judge is biased! durrr"

That's how you know Twitter didn't go to law school and has never practiced law.

Yeah I accidentally switch my XM station to the POTUS station in my car and they were doing exactly that. Basically claiming that the judge wasn't acting impartial.

Really? A fucking attorney fresh out of law school knows you can't make the assertion that remaining silent implies guilt. I can only imagine what one of my judges here would have done. I can only assume the prosecutor is intentionally trying to get the case declared a mistrial which is what pissed the judge off.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I mean I'm not sure why that would be. I mean he is just opening himself up for an easy appeal if he got the conviction.

But yeah he has probably gotten away with shit like that in the past with people who have a public defender and can't afford an attorney for an appeal.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Smitty]

Reading twitter is hilarious.

Right on cue thousands of accounts start tweeting - and yeah, I'm sure all these bozos with tattoos and massive amounts of facial hair were all spending their mornings watching courtTV - about the impartiality of the judge and how it's evidence of (pick one) white privilege/racism/bias.

Translation: he's yelling at my team so therefore it shouldn't count (if these accounts are even real people and not bots).

The judge already ruled on the admissibility of that content and the DA tried to backdoor it. I'm surprised the Judge was as restrained as he was, frankly.

 

[Smitty]

When the Judge explained about the rounds, the DA goes "Well judge you are kind of testifying," or something like that and the Judge retorts back to the DA "Well you've been testifying the whole time," lol.

 

[Cotton]

When the Judge explained about the rounds, the DA goes "Well judge you are kind of testifying," or something like that and the Judge retorts back to the DA "Well you've been testifying the whole time," lol.

Binger should be held in contempt.