You're an ignorant ****...and Harden is garbage this year. Glad we got rid of him before the downturn...he'll never win a ring.
Lets see... I predicted the rittenhouse would walk, that the trump supporters would elevate him to being a hero, and that he would make money off of this. The first two things happened. We'll see if the trump supporters make the third thing happen.
He was attacked for trying to put out a literal dumpster fire that the rioters were pushing towards a gas station... Sounds pretty heroic for a 17 year old.
We're built different. Anyone who does the lords work and ceases to exist child rapists is just A-ok in my book.
Noticed that too? Huh? The "I know we been racist for 400 yrs but racism would go away if those victims of racism would just get over it......I mean we won't apologize or make amends for it....they should just get over it.....and I mean if we still doing some of it....well that is just isolated incidents" crowd out there are crowing for their new King and queen A 17 yr old that reminds them of themselves and other incels....and his 38 yr old a mother. Rocket River I guess I could just let them have their moment of complete and total hypocrisy and racist frevor.......but .....I had to point it out.
But not constitutional work because that doesn't allow extrajudicial killings. Also the Bible along with the Quran was perfectly fine with child rape.
We are a country of laws with a judicial system in place. You sound like the typical Republican hollering about kill them with no trial with a drip of the Lord’s name mixed in. You’re all ****ing hypocrites and have obviously never read the Ten Commandments and probably haven’t been to a real church in years.
I think that's exactly what it is. They are projecting themselves into Rittenhouse and see themselves in him. Many of my right wing friends and acquaintances from my time in the military basically think education is useless. They think all of it is a "liberal indoctrination camp" so they probably see value in Rittenhouse being a dropout and complete failure at academics. What he's great at is bootlicking law enforcement and right wing movements. Like I want to ask the right wingers who are praising him for putting out a fire... Do you think he would put out a fire started by a proud boys member or what about the Bundy ranch standoffs? Would he back the blue then when they were pointing firearms at federal officers and threatening their lives? Or is maybe just maybe his extent of empathy to prevent a fire from spreading only comes from the fact the fire was started by his ideological enemy rather than some sincere desire to help his community? Remember his history according to his classmates and how they said he was the "trigger the libs" type wearing political paraphernalia and lashing out at anyone who spoke I'll of Trump. He's an ideological weapon, a fat out of shape weapon with no genuine training weapon, but a weapon that other right wing LARPers can be emboldened by.
hard to understand what's going on with the ACLU these days The ACLU Thinks Kyle Rittenhouse's Civil Liberties Got Too Much Protection The American Civil Liberties Union should not cavalierly take the side of prosecutors against the concept of self-defense. https://reason.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-acquitted-aclu-media-liberals/ excerpt: Perhaps it's not surprising that activists and Democratic politicians would reflexively cite white supremacy in a trial outcome that disappoints Team Blue. More troubling is the response to the verdict from an organization that should know better: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In a statement reacting to the verdict, ACLU-Wisconsin Interim Executive Director Shaadie Ali lamented the "deep roots of white supremacy" in Kenosha that prevented Rittenhouse from being "held responsible for his actions." "Kyle Rittenhouse was a juvenile who traveled across state lines on a vigilante mission, was allowed by police to roam the streets of Kenosha with an assault rifle and ended up shooting three people and killing two," said Brandon Buskey, director of the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project. "These are the simple, tragic facts. His acquittal comes after an ACLU investigation exposing how Kenosha law enforcement used violence against protesters and drove them toward white militia groups, in ways that escalated tensions and almost certainly led to these shootings." In a Twitter thread, the ACLU complained that Rittenhouse was not held accountable for his "conscious decision to travel across state lines and injure one person and take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police." Of course, it is not illegal to travel across state lines; the fact that Rittenhouse wandered outside the boundaries of his home and entered a neighboring municipality was irrelevant to the case. The jury did not agree with—and the facts of the case did not support—the claim that his decision to shoot three people was "conscious" in the sense that it was premeditated. He argued that he rationally believed his life was in imminent danger, and the surviving shooting victim provided testimony that supported this argument. One might have expected that an organization dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties would not so cavalierly take the side of prosecutors against the concept of self-defense. In the past, the ACLU has done terrific work shining a light on prosecutorial misconduct—the tremendous power the state has to stack the deck against defendants. The ACLU purports to believe that all people, even the guilty, deserve due process protections. The organization is evidently outraged by the verdict: Is the ACLU outraged that the prosecutor tried to argue that Rittenhouse exercising his Miranda rights was evidence of his guilt? It is not necessary to elevate Rittenhouse to hero status, or to agree with his very poor decision to involve himself in the Kenosha riots, to accept that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him. Rittenhouse is now a free man—not because of white supremacy, or because the criminal justice system failed. Activists, politicians, and media figures who purport to care about civil liberties should work toward empowering other defendants to avail themselves of due process, rather than complain that in this one case, the prosecutors did not get its way.
Interesting that you refer to the Lord's work while celebrating someone who carried an assault rifle into a riot and killed two people. I must have missed that part of the Bible...
I think the verdict comes as no surprise... What's disturbing is how people are celebrating Kyle Rittenhouse as a hero for bringing a gun to a protest. As @rocketsjudoka has stated, bring a gun to a protest escalates to violence as it threatens others and puts the gun carrier in greater danger since he now must also protect his gun - and is more likely to use it, if anyone approaches him under the guise of self defense. Allowing guns at peaceful protests is the real issue here, the real endemic problem. There needs to be rules of engagement laws regarding the use of firearms. What's going to happen here if you don't is that the other side will bring guns, and then shoot people with guns under the claim of self defense. Everyone will become less safe. While the right may celebrate this because in truth their aim is to score points against liberals, this in fact won't lead to anything but turning the public against guns. Imagine if protests start erupting in shootings on a consistent basis? Of course, perhaps the real agenda is to ban protests and stifle democratic speech which is why you have the exaggerated claims that protestors are "burning our cities down"
https://reason.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-has-been-acquitted-on-all-charges/ excerpt: . . . "If you created the danger," Binger said, "you forfeit the right to self-defense by bringing that gun, aiming it at people, threatening people's lives." No matter your feelings toward Rittenhouse, that statement by the prosecutor was "legally wrong," says Clark Neily, who served as co-counsel in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. "The right to arm yourself and to protect yourself—these are natural rights that are not granted by the government, they're not granted by the Constitution. They're rights that we all possess."
Just a caveat. I think Joseph Rosenbaum lived a pretty scummy life and was doing property damage and rioting. I don't like him. I think he is a net negative to society. But I kept hearing how he is a child molester and in my head I was thinking a grown adult in his 20s or 30s doing inappropriate acts with children. But I looked at his criminal complaints record and those charges were in 2002 when he was....18 years old and the victims were around 15 years of age. Now it definitely is a grey area and I definitely wouldn't condone such a behavior but I don't think that 3 year age gap warrants him being labeled a child molester. I don't know? It's one of those grey area situations. He still was a piece of **** though.
"Documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County Arizona Clerk of Courts appear to show that Joseph Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including sodomy. Wisconsin Right Now also reported the following: The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old, but the 11 charges were amended in a plea deal, and Rosenbaum was convicted of amended counts." You can Google the heinous acts he was indicted for with the 5 boys. I won't include them in this post.
The lesson from this is that the people with guns should have shot him before he shot them amirite? Remember kids, if you have a gun, and you see someone with a gun, don't wait until they shoot you! And don't worry, just say it was self-defense!
fox news and tucker carlson had an "embedded" news crew filming during the rittenhouse trial (including in the room with rittenhouse and his legal team).
The article I read that had his criminal complaints showed the age being 15 but if it's 11, then that is pretty clearly horrible. But of the age difference was between a 18 year old and 15 years old, I don't think that would make someone a pedophile. Maybe a tad inappropriate. Edit; here's the article with all the complaints. All of them either says 15 years or under 15 with no specific age for the ones saying "under 15". Another one says 17 which confuses me as he was 18 at the time which I don't think it makes it illegal unless it was not consensual. "Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender Arizona '02 Criminal Complaint" https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/11/joseph-rosenbaum-sex-offender/?amp=1 I can't find the actual cited age of 11 from the straight source of the actual public complaints. But this is something I really don't want to longer over. Don't have much sympathy for him to waste my time correcting the record for him.
The case was a **** show on all sides, on all fronts, in every which way by everyone involved(Rittenhouse, deceased, the lone survivor, the judge, prosecution) except the defense team and the jury. Can we all agree on that?
