quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

Originally posted by raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by 1320racer:
Again, he had no business being there! The rioters were not even on his state no mind town, No mind neighborhood. He wasn’t defending his property, his family. He was on a hunt!

Further, just by being there he violated the 8pm curfew and oh yea, Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under 18 from being armed unless they are hunting. Maybe his defense team plans to say he was.

While I don't always agree with ED, I wholeheartedly agree with him here, Rittenhouse went looking for trouble as Barney Badazz and found it !

How's that work when a black guy walks through a white neighborhood? Is he looking for trouble?

Walks through? Or grabs a gun and pretends to play cop in a neighborhood in another state?

Well, let's just say he does have a gun, and we have no idea what state he is from.

I’m what would be considered a gun nut with more than my fair share of firearms.
I believe in self defense and the second amendment. In this case however, rittenhouse is in the wrong. He was looking for trouble and accomplished exactly what he set out to do.

Some of these responses are EXACTLY why the Republican party has lost all the ground it has in recent decades. Most of us seem to be above getting our hands dirty, and don't think anyone else should either. We don't even support those who do. Maybe if we just stomp our feet and act righteous, things will shape up and Republicans will be in power again.

How's that work when a black guy walks through a white neighborhood? Is he looking for trouble?[/QUOTE]

No, only if he has a mentality of 2 nuts swinging below his bumper which is indicative of his IQ.

So were Davy Crockett or Jim Bowie wrong for being at the Alamo? They both traveled thru many states to protect what they felt was a just cause. I am glad they did.

quote:

Originally posted by Little Chief:
So were Davy Crockett or Jim Bowie wrong for being at the Alamo? They both traveled thru many states to protect what they felt was a just cause. I am glad they did.

No they were not..... But its not 1836 either and we don't have muskets !

quote:

Originally posted by Little Chief:
So were Davy Crockett or Jim Bowie wrong for being at the Alamo? They both traveled thru many states to protect what they felt was a just cause. I am glad they did.

The world we live in has changed a lot over the last 200 years

quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:

quote:

Originally posted by Little Chief:
So were Davy Crockett or Jim Bowie wrong for being at the Alamo? They both traveled thru many states to protect what they felt was a just cause. I am glad they did.

The world we live in has changed a lot over the last 200 years

By the looks of our cities, and the riff raff happening there, it may need a little changin back.

It has changed a lot in the last 200 years. Some good and some not so much. We have become much more passive as a society, which I am as guilty as anyone else. I do see a trend where more and more people are willing to buck the status quo.

quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:
In this case however, rittenhouse is in the wrong. He was looking for trouble and accomplished exactly what he set out to do.

Every single person out there that night was looking for trouble. Rittenouse was not the aggressor in any of the three encounters where he fired his weapon.

To those who think Rittenhouse is in the wrong because he has a firearm with him, was the guy who he shot in the arm that had the handgun not just as wrong?

If rittenhouse was a police officer of the city he would be cleared in self defense. When you travel across state lines to play robo cop you are looking for trouble, and he found it.

I don't care where he came from or anything else from what I can see he was running from aggressors and had been knocked to the ground before he fired a shot. Here its pretty open and shut, he is allowed to defend himself. Some on here would let their wife be raped, home burned, and everything they owned stolen and they would not take a stand because they are cowards that have never stood for anything. Same with the Hunter Patton deal, stand up for yourself don't wait for someone else to do it. To many cowards that never stood up for anything!

quote:

Originally posted by CURTIS REED:
To those who think Rittenhouse is in the wrong because he has a firearm with him, was the guy who he shot in the arm that had the handgun not just as wrong?

THAT guy is a criminal, A PROHIBITED POSSESSOR of a firearm, PERIOD.

quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:
If rittenhouse was a police officer of the city he would be cleared in self defense. When you travel across state lines to play robo cop you are looking for trouble, and he found it.

The POLICE were down the street hiding from the trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by Goob:

quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:
If rittenhouse was a police officer of the city he would be cleared in self defense. When you travel across state lines to play robo cop you are looking for trouble, and he found it.

The POLICE were down the street hiding from the trouble.

In the isolated event, rittenhouse was right to defend himself. However, that’s not what the jury will most likely see as the entire picture is looked at.

quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:
When you travel across state lines to play robo cop you are looking for trouble, and he found it.

DEAD ON WITH A ZERO!

quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:

quote:

Originally posted by Goob:

quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:
If rittenhouse was a police officer of the city he would be cleared in self defense. When you travel across state lines to play robo cop you are looking for trouble, and he found it.

The POLICE were down the street hiding from the trouble.

In the isolated event, rittenhouse was right to defend himself. However, that’s not what the jury will most likely see as the entire picture is looked at.

American Citizens aren't free to travel at will, and occupy any public space they choose?
Interesting theory.

quote:

Originally posted by racerdude2054:
If rittenhouse was a police officer of the city he would be cleared in self defense. When you travel across state lines to play robo cop you are looking for trouble, and he found it.

Let's say that you are right.
What does it change? Nothing.
He didn't instigate the aggression as someone said above.
There is a difference between some of us saying being where he was, when he was, was unwise........and knowing that he wasn't within his rights to do so. We can nit pick at the curfew or the age thing.
But let's for a moment take all of the things said that he shouldn't have done, and apply it to all other citizens.

-Shouldn't have had a gun
-Shouldn't have crossed state lines
-Shouldn't have approached anyone
-Shouldn't have been up past his bed time
-Shouldn't have been in the vicinity of the riot

Apply it to all others there.
Apply it to all the business owners
Apply it to all citizens.
Fair? Different situation?

I don't know what traveling across state lines has to do with anything. Is that illegal? Not advised somehow? And I don't get how he played robocop. He shot some fellas who were fixin to kill him. I'm not sure I get the comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by Goob:


American Citizens aren't free to travel at will, and occupy any public space they choose?
Interesting theory.

True, let them Rob, Rape, Loot and Burn our cities to the ground. Do not stand up and protect our Cities, our Country and our way of life. Not.

Just bend over and let the Criminals do what they do. Nothing to see here Folks, Democrats what Democrats do.