Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

AZGrizFan wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:18 am Best guess is that he took an immunity deal from the DA to testify because they were desperate to try to convict, and when he got on the stand confessing to being the aggressor of the situation.

I still remember that they media tried to make him a sympathetic figure because the "mean white supremacist" shot a poor paramedic in the arm who had nothing to do with the situation, a face to the BIG LIE that Rittenhouse was firing wildly into the crowd killing a bunch of black people who was trying to get away from him.

It always sucks when facts get in the way of a good fairytale.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

Facts never stopped leftists or MAGAts. Ever.

DSUrocks07 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:18 amthe BIG LIE that Rittenhouse was firing wildly into the crowd killing a bunch of black people who was trying to get away from him.


Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

Gil Dobie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:49 pm Can't believe the spin the left is putting on this trial. It's as bad as the Trumpers and Covid.

JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:15 pm

Gil Dobie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:49 pm Can't believe the spin the left is putting on this trial. It's as bad as the Trumpers and Covid.

I do think we need to stop acting like there is symmetry by how bad the misinformation thing is on each side. It's way worse on the "Trumper" side. Not close.

To me there seems to be this thing where people feel like they need to say that both sides are just as bad in order to show that they are balanced. But that's not the situation right now. Both sides are not just as bad right now. The Republican/Conservative side is way worse. WAY worse.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:49 pm Can't believe the spin the left is putting on this trial. It's as bad as the Trumpers and Covid.

I do think we need to stop acting like there is symmetry by how bad the misinformation thing is on each side. It's way worse on the "Trumper" side. Not close.

To me there seems to be this thing where people feel like they need to say that both sides are just as bad in order to show that they are balanced. But that's not the situation right now. Both sides are not just as bad right now. The Republican/Conservative side is way worse. WAY worse.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:20 pm

This probably is applicable to 95 percent of Biden voters; at least the ones who were alive when they voted…

* I didn’t know that Kyle put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.
* I didn’t know that the Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
* I didn’t know that Kyles Dad, Grandma and Friends all lived in Kenosha, 20 minutes from where he resided with his Mom part time in Illinois.
* I didn’t know that Joseph Rosenbaum knocked him down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head.
* I didn’t know that Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard.
* I didn’t know Gaige Grosskreutz, a felon in possession of firearm, aimed his gun at Kyle first, as he admitted on the stand.
* I also didn’t know that in the State of Wisconsin, it is legal for Kyle to have a gun, even at 17 (which was why the gun charge was dismissed).
* I didn’t know that Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have. The rightful gun owner did, as he was legally permitted to do.
* I also didn’t realize that Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted child rapist and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater. I didn’t know that Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record also.

IF THE MEDIA DID THEIR JOB… we would ALL have known this!

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:20 pm

This entire case has been emotional from the beginning - just look at this board.
All that aside - it doesn't excuse vigilantism which is what this boiled down to. Who owned the gun he used?

For the record - I don't think he showed up to create problems and I believe he acted in self defense. But let's not think this kid is some badass or American Hero. He acted in self defense and got lucky. How many people act in self defense everyday and still lose? He made a stupid decision to be a vigilante. And using the criminal history of the dead to justify it as well is just ridiculous. By that logic, you'll justify the 9/11 attacks if you learned that some American criminals were killed on the plain or in the towers. The adage, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is very fitting here.

Fortunately, Kyle is going to make so much damn money from suing the various media outlets that he'll never have to work a day in his life.

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: This entire case has been emotional from the beginning - just look at this board.
All that aside - it doesn't excuse vigilantism which is what this boiled down to. Who owned the gun he used?

For the record - I don't think he showed up to create problems and I believe he acted in self defense. But let's not think this kid is some badass or American Hero. He acted in self defense and got lucky. How many people act in self defense everyday and still lose? He made a stupid decision to be a vigilante. And using the criminal history of the dead to justify it as well is just ridiculous. By that logic, you'll justify the 9/11 attacks if you learned that some American criminals were killed on the plain or in the towers. The adage, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is very fitting here.

Fortunately, Kyle is going to make so much damn money from suing the various media outlets that he'll never have to work a day in his life.

See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DSUrocks07 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:00 am

CID1990 wrote: See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This.

By that metric, are all armed security guards vigilantes? The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on the right of self defense.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:21 am

Ibanez wrote: This entire case has been emotional from the beginning - just look at this board.
All that aside - it doesn't excuse vigilantism which is what this boiled down to. Who owned the gun he used?

For the record - I don't think he showed up to create problems and I believe he acted in self defense. But let's not think this kid is some badass or American Hero. He acted in self defense and got lucky. How many people act in self defense everyday and still lose? He made a stupid decision to be a vigilante. And using the criminal history of the dead to justify it as well is just ridiculous. By that logic, you'll justify the 9/11 attacks if you learned that some American criminals were killed on the plain or in the towers. The adage, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is very fitting here.

Fortunately, Kyle is going to make so much damn money from suing the various media outlets that he'll never have to work a day in his life.

See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DSUrocks07 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:00 am

CID1990 wrote: See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This.

By that metric, are all armed security guards vigilantes? The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on the right of self defense.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:53 am

CID1990 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:21 am
See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.

Definition of vigilante
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:16 am

DSUrocks07 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:00 am This.

By that metric, are all armed security guards vigilantes? The government doesn't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on the right of self defense.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

I agree. Technical definition of "vigilante" implies dispensing justice on someone. By this case, technically Rittenhouse isn't a vigilante as it was deemed to be self defense. He didn't go after anyone, he held off people going after him.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:56 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:53 am
What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.

Well, your opinion could be that, but the opinion of Merriam and Webster is ...

Definition of vigilante
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante

The English language is pretty expressive, I'm sure you can find a term that fits Rittenhouse since vigilante doesn't.

law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.

Ibanez wrote:

CID1990 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:21 am See? This is yet another example of the facts of this case not matching what is being said or alleged.

If Rittenhouse had used his weapon to shoot people because they were committing crimes like arson or vandalism, then he would be a vigilante. Vigilantism is an aggressive act. Rittenhouse was not shown to have committed any aggressive acts.

Rittenhouse did not commit any acts of vigilantism, at least none that were documented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.

CID1990 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:19 pm

Ibanez wrote: What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.

Standing i front of businesses defying people to destroy them is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is an aggressive act, not a defensive one.

I’m surprised at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:21 pm

CID1990 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:19 pm
Standing i front of businesses defying people to destroy them is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is an aggressive act, not a defensive one.

I’m surprised at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what people don't get. Ibanez is trying a work around of the "he shouldn't have been there" narrative that is weak as hell considering the gubmint abdicated its duty to keep the peace and protect public safety (not just in Kenosha, but pretty much everywhere during those 2020 riots). Once the gubmint failed its duty to protect public safety, its up to the people to fend for themselves and let the dead felons...er I mean chips fall where they may.

This idea that once societal order breaks down and people should just standby and let the criminals run roughshod over everything is absurd. Fuck that mentality. Only a punk ass bitch would think not protecting their community/family is the way to go.

CID1990 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:19 pm

Ibanez wrote: What else do you call it when self-appointed people take law enforcement into their own hands? That's essentially what he claimed by stating he was there to protect private property. That should've been the role of law enforcement during protests/riots and not the role of a 17 year old kid.

IMO, violence and aggression don't have to occur for someone to be a vigilante. All those bikers who went down the US/Mexico Border to patrol didn't go there to cause violence...but they were there to enforce the law w/o the legal authority to do so.

Standing i front of businesses defying people to destroy them is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is an aggressive act, not a defensive one.

I’m surprised at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LeadBolt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:41 am Kyle Rittenhouse lived approximately 20 miles or so from the incident. His father lives in Kenosha.

Government in this country is based upon “We the People”. When government fails to protect “We the people “ it has failed and “We the people need to act”.

One group of “We the people “ felt that the government failed them and started rioting, looting, burning and assaulting other people.

The government stood down.

Kyle Rittenhouse went out to defend the life, liberty and property (Jefferson’s original wording) of those being assaulted by the first group.

The people that verbally threatened to kill him, swung chains at him, ran him down when he tried to disengage and pointed a loaded gun at him were the aggressors. Rittenhouse obviously had reasons to act in self defense.

When Rittenhouse and those that he shot were all white, I can’t understand why this is supposed to be about race.

The press is pushing a false, sensationalized story to fit their agenda. Only those gullible, too lazy to ascertain the facts or too ignorant of the actual facts are falling for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CAA Flagship wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:43 am So let's say a person is standing in front of a business or home while trying to protect it with a gun.
And a person or group of persons begin to cause damage to the structure.
Is there a legal right to use the gun to stop the damage? Does the person with the gun have to be on the inside to use a self defense excuse?

What if the person with the gun is on the outside and a looter is exiting the business or home with stolen property? Is there any legal recourse to shoot the looter?

I'm trying to understand where the law allows the use of a gun in the absence of defense of bodily harm.