Rittenhouse found innocent

[Ferno]

Rittenhouse: "IMMA TRAVEL ACROSS STATE LINES AND SHOOT PEOPLE I HATE"

Also Rittenhouse: "ub blub blub i so sowwy I did the thing IS THE JUDGE BUYING THIS?"

[Top Gun]

He's such a complete ★■◆●ing pussy.

[woodchip]

The guys who have I.Q.'s akin to you two are are the guys who thought it was a good idea to attack a kid armed with a AR-15...2 dead and 1 wounded. And using smear tactic's straight out of the leftist playbook only works well in your minds . Jealous Rittenhouse will make millions off the lawsuits he has against the leftist news organs? The book deals he will get? And a pussy? I wonder what the wunderkinds vision and TG would do in similar circumstances. I suspect the only place you get your bravery high is here.

[Ferno]

Oh wow, that's hilarious. Tell me, who writes your material? Because that ★■◆● is gold. Honestly, I got a good laugh out of it.

But, if you're going to put me into that situation, you might want to know that I'm able to put six rounds into a five inch grouping with a pistol at 40 yards. Not bragging here - just something I found out I can do when I was at a range last.

[Top Gun]

Ah, the few remaining neurons of a senile boomer firing futilely into the void. You hate to see it.

For the record I would never be in such a situation in the first place, because I don't need to compensate for my dick size.

[woodchip]

Oh wow, that's hilarious. Tell me, who writes your material? Because that ★■◆● is gold. Honestly, I got a good laugh out of it.

But, if you're going to put me into that situation, you might want to know that I'm able to put six rounds into a five inch grouping with a pistol at 40 yards. Not bragging here - just something I found out I can do when I was at a range last.

While that is decent shooting, target practice is one thing, shooting under stress is another. Try shooting in some IDPA (international defensive pistol association) shoots to get a better feel. Glad I raised your mood if even for a minute or two.

[Tunnelcat]

The guys who have I.Q.'s akin to you two are are the guys who thought it was a good idea to attack a kid armed with a AR-15...2 dead and 1 wounded. And using smear tactic's straight out of the leftist playbook only works well in your minds . Jealous Rittenhouse will make millions off the lawsuits he has against the leftist news organs? The book deals he will get? And a pussy? I wonder what the wunderkinds vision and TG would do in similar circumstances. I suspect the only place you get your bravery high is here.

Let me ask you this. If you were a civilian and thought that this kid was running around shooting people randomly in a mass shooting incident wouldn't you try to stop him from killing more people even if you were not armed yourself? The guy who was shot in the arm had that very thought, that Rittenhouse was a loose cannon mass shooter running around. Personally, I would try to bludgeon the kid in the head with a sneak attack if I had the opportunity to save other lives. I'd make sure the little prick was out cold too.

[Tunnelcat]

This is how the Rittenhouse case should've been prosecuted, as vigilantism, not self defense.

You and everyone else who doesn't LIKE the fact that Rittenhouse and his friends were armed can try to fit that peg into a "vigilantism" hole, but the reason he was acquitted in a court of law was because every time he used force that night it was defensive--in response to violent action perpetrated against him. His actions otherwise were reparative. They were not there to try to enforce the law--they were there help people, and they were armed because there was a threat. If 0 people had attacked Kyle, 0 people would have been shot in self-defense. The only action they took that might be labelled "vigilantism" was their decision to defend a car lot from looting and fires, after talking with the owner. Whoops! Still "defense" going on there. But he wasn't charged with anything relating to the car lot.

I think an argument could be made that things would not have escalated in quite that way had they not been armed, but frankly anyone willing to make that argument should have their property and belongings burned down/up by a mob. The mentality of letting violent people get away with what they will because opposing them could cause escalation is a cowardly mentality that fosters vulnerability. No one has a right to attack you, and no one has a right to take or destroy what you own.

He wasn't defending his own property, he went out that night, along with all those other armed right wing militia nutbags, with the purpose in mind to defend other people's businesses (which they didn't ask for by the way either), which makes him a vigilante, period. The fact he had a gun says he either meant to use it, or instead had some delusional hope that just the show of weaponry would suffice as a deterrent. He was sadly mistaken and at least one person tried to stop him fearing he was a mass shooter. There are many instances of business owners shooting looters in the L.A riots years ago, and they were not prosecuted for murder. I also have the right to defend my own property from people trying to break in or destroy it if I fear bodily harm.

Vigilantism

Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society's designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... igilantism

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think the biggest hole in your argument is that this particular instance of "vigilantism" involves only defensive actions, regardless of who or what is being defended. Is that really the "vigilantism" that you think about when you use the word or take issue with the concept as problematic? The other hole is that it wouldn't do you any good to try to prosecute Rittenhouse or any of his friends for their intentions when the only problem that arose, arose as a result not of aggression from them, but rather aggression targeted at them.

I also take issue with your anecdote that someone attacked Rittenhouse because they thought he was a mass shooter. How could anyone justify this impression based on the circumstances in the videos available? I understand that you find it believable, but I would go a step further than incredulity and say that it's bull&(#@. The attacks on Rittenhouse as he ran toward the police were not acts of heroism, they were cowardly mob mentality induced attempts to take down the person with the gun, in ignorance of why or to what end he was carrying the gun. The people who attacked him had no sane reason to feel threatened as he ran the other way. This was at best remarkably poor judgement. Maybe you are all too on edge about black guns, and you need to unplug so that your imaginations can calm down. The defining characteristic of mass shooters is that they shoot large numbers of people unprovoked, and they advance with gun leveled rather than retreat with gun held in a safe direction. This is incredibly stupid.

[Ferno]

LOL. Get a load of this idiot up here. ^^

[Vander]

The defining characteristic of mass shooters is that they shoot large numbers of people unprovoked, and they advance with gun leveled rather than retreat with gun held in a safe direction.

This isn't true at all.

[Tunnelcat]

I think the biggest hole in your argument is that this particular instance of "vigilantism" involves only defensive actions, regardless of who or what is being defended. Is that really the "vigilantism" that you think about when you use the word or take issue with the concept as problematic? The other hole is that it wouldn't do you any good to try to prosecute Rittenhouse or any of his friends for their intentions when the only problem that arose, arose as a result not of aggression from them, but rather aggression targeted at them.

I also take issue with your anecdote that someone attacked Rittenhouse because they thought he was a mass shooter. How could anyone justify this impression based on the circumstances in the videos available? I understand that you find it believable, but I would go a step further than incredulity and say that it's bull&(#@. The attacks on Rittenhouse as he ran toward the police were not acts of heroism, they were cowardly mob mentality induced attempts to take down the person with the gun, in ignorance of why or to what end he was carrying the gun. The people who attacked him had no sane reason to feel threatened as he ran the other way. This was at best remarkably poor judgement. Maybe you are all too on edge about black guns, and you need to unplug so that your imaginations can calm down. The defining characteristic of mass shooters is that they shoot large numbers of people unprovoked, and they advance with gun leveled rather than retreat with gun held in a safe direction. This is incredibly stupid.

There were other ADULT men carrying guns that night. None of them shot at anyone, nor were they attacked by anyone in the crowd. Yet this stupid kid was. Why is that? And yes, one of his shooting victims testified in court that he thought the kid was a mass shooter, especially after seeing him shoot another person that night. I guess the moral is, if you actually see some kid shoot another person, shoot him first if you draw your weapon, because a kid isn't mentally developed enough to see what he's doing wrong and is carrying a lethal weapon.

https://www.newsweek.com/man-wounded-ky ... er-1647137

[Sergeant Thorne]

There were other ADULT men carrying guns that night. None of them shot at anyone, nor were they attacked by anyone in the crowd. Yet this stupid kid was. Why is that?

I think it makes the most sense to limit your suggestive inquiry to the incident with Rosenbaum, since everything that occurred after that involved mob mentality response to the initial incident. Maybe Rosenbaum didn't like 'em older than that? (sarcasm) I would guess purely situational, or maybe he Rittenhouse was perceived to be the easier target, but it's an impossible line of inquiry.

And yes, one of his shooting victims testified in court that he thought the kid was a mass shooter, especially after seeing him shoot another person that night. I guess the moral is, if you actually see some kid shoot another person, shoot him first if you draw your weapon, because a kid isn't mentally developed enough to see what he's doing wrong and is carrying a lethal weapon.

https://www.newsweek.com/man-wounded-ky ... er-1647137

Shoot first is certainly the way to guarantee that the other person with a gun is the one who gets shot. Would have been either vigilante justice or murder in that case, and not a justifiable case of self-defense. I'm not sure which of those you've decided to be okay, or why you should be okay with it. The clearest lesson is not to be part of a mob swarming someone with a semiautomatic weapon, and especially not the one brandishing a weapon yourself. He wasn't even trying to communicate with Rittenhouse. A lesson could certainly be taken from that. After multiple attempts by others to take Rittenhouse down by force, he apparently thought he was going to be the one to disarm him (while carrying a pistol in his right hand). He's lucky that all it cost him was his bicep.

[Top Gun]

No, Thorne, the only lesson here is don't go somewhere you have absolutely no business in the world being waving around a ★■◆●ing assault rifle like a ★■◆●ing psychopath. Holy shitballs.

[Tunnelcat]

There were other ADULT men carrying guns that night. None of them shot at anyone, nor were they attacked by anyone in the crowd. Yet this stupid kid was. Why is that?

I think it makes the most sense to limit your suggestive inquiry to the incident with Rosenbaum, since everything that occurred after that involved mob mentality response to the initial incident. Maybe Rosenbaum didn't like 'em older than that? (sarcasm) I would guess purely situational, or maybe he Rittenhouse was perceived to be the easier target, but it's an impossible line of inquiry.

And yes, one of his shooting victims testified in court that he thought the kid was a mass shooter, especially after seeing him shoot another person that night. I guess the moral is, if you actually see some kid shoot another person, shoot him first if you draw your weapon, because a kid isn't mentally developed enough to see what he's doing wrong and is carrying a lethal weapon.

https://www.newsweek.com/man-wounded-ky ... er-1647137

Shoot first is certainly the way to guarantee that the other person with a gun is the one who gets shot. Would have been either vigilante justice or murder in that case, and not a justifiable case of self-defense. I'm not sure which of those you've decided to be okay, or why you should be okay with it. The clearest lesson is not to be part of a mob swarming someone with a semiautomatic weapon, and especially not the one brandishing a weapon yourself. He wasn't even trying to communicate with Rittenhouse. A lesson could certainly be taken from that. After multiple attempts by others to take Rittenhouse down by force, he apparently thought he was going to be the one to disarm him (while carrying a pistol in his right hand). He's lucky that all it cost him was his bicep.

You're missing my hair-split Thorne. When Rittenhouse decided to arm himself with an assault rifle and take it across state lines with the specific intention to protect other people's businesses during a protest, he was being a vigilante, period. He fits the legal definition. Once he started shooting while being attacked however, he was doing it in self defense. I agreed with the verdict considering what he was being prosecuted for. Where I don't agree is WHAT he was prosecuted for, which in my mind should've been being an underage vigilante with the intention to shoot others if protestors/rioters attacked any businesses he was supposedly protecting. The fact is, those business owners did NOT ask for his or all those other militia idiots security help, nor did they hire him for reasons of security either, so he was definitely acting as a vigilante. And this is why underage males should NOT own an assault weapon, or even a pistol for that matter. They're more likely to believe what they are doing is a fun adventure akin to being in a video game than ending up with the real world consequences of killing someone by using that weapon in real life. The fact that HE was the only one doing the shooting that night proves that. Remember, most human beings don't reach emotional brain adulthood until about 25 years of age.

[Spidey]

Some people keep hanging onto "crossed state lines" for dear life. In the US, citizens have no jurisdiction so crossing a state line has no legal meaning.

"underage vigilante with the intention to shoot others if protestors/rioters attacked any businesses he was supposedly protecting"

Pure speculation (among other things) and any prosecutor would be a fool to use it.

[Jeff250]

I don't think that our criminal justice system is equipped to handle a scenario like this. I can only hope that there is some justice found via a civil lawsuit.

P.S. I agree that the argument about state lines is weak and sounds like something you would hear in a nation with much weaker guarantees of rights.

[Tunnelcat]

Yes, you can carry guns across state lines. Hunters do it all the time, so do recreational shooters. But HE, legally still a child, took the gun across state lines and used it to kill in self defense while acting as a vigilante. If that's not murky in a legal sense, I don't know what is. But him being a vigilante is not murky. He himself even stated he was going to those protests armed with his rifle to help protect local businesses from rioters. Those words could've been used against him in a court of law.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Do you happen to have a reference for what he said their intentions were, and the supposed taking the rifle across state lines? If I remember, correctly--and I could find a reference on this too--the rifle did not come with him across state lines--the rifle was in WI. This was why the "rifle across state lines by a minor" was dismissed from the case.

[Sergeant Thorne]

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/ritte ... ut-weapon/

So I was remembering correctly there. The rifle did not cross state lines. The attempt to prosecute based on possession was thrown out because it was not a short barreled rifle, and he was within his legal right to possess in WI.

[Tunnelcat]

OK, you are correct that Rittenhouse was not driven by his mother across state lines WITH the rifle in his possession, so that's out. Kyle's friend Mr. Black had the weapon in his possession when Kyle drove himself (no driver's license by the way) to Kenosha. Fact is, I didn't even hear that part of the fake plot about his mother driving him personally, so that's news to me. That lie was propaganda put out by Democratic Rep. Karen Bass. Shame on her for inflaming the whole damn mess and since she's African American, she should be careful what she spouts because it makes her look knee jerk prejudicial despite the fact that NO Black people were victims of Kyle that night.

However, Kyle still carried that rifle AND a fire extinguisher towards a car dealership with the stated purpose of lending first aid and self protection. When pressed as to WHY he thought he needed the rifle for self protection, he couldn't give a clear answer other than he thought he wouldn't have to use it. Suuuure. If he thought he didn't need it, why'd he carry it in the first place, AFTER curfew no less?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/10 ... -testimony

Then there's this little tidbit into his state of mind before he armed himself. He was on video stating that he wished that he had his AR-15 so the he could shoot people coming out of a CVS store. Typical immature mind, being a macho big mouth teenager with no concept of the consequences of actually having to shoot someone.

https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouse ... 29155.html

And then there's the police being friendly towards the Kenosha Militia who were armed that night as well.

https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/07/0 ... -friendly/

So the police pretty much allowed an unregulated armed militia group, the Kenosha Guard, who invited armed citizens to show up that night to stand around as vigilantes, of which Kyle was pretty much part of by the way. If the police needed help that night, they should've damn well deputized these idiots so that they weren't legally considered vigilantes. But they didn't, did they? It was a kind of wink wink situation going on and the police themselves allowed the law to be violated that night. No one is clean here.

[Tunnelcat]

One question Thorne. Do you think it's a good idea for a young male teenager amped up on raging hormones combined with an underdeveloped emotional brain running around with a loaded AR-15 in the middle of a riot? Remember, most of the recent school mass shooters WERE teen-aged males. I'm not asking about if those rioters deserved to be shot for burglary and arson either. That's a whole separate issue.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think your characterization comes off as extremely biased and doesn't represent what happened. Most news sources are extremely biased on this topic. Rittenhouse is the enemy to them, and it has nothing to do with how he conducted himself and everything to do with his resistance to the particular anti-social behavior that is being given a pass, and exercise of rights that they are aligned against.

Society is less safe because of the coddling of anti-social behavior. Those boundaries being overrun need to be there, and the consequences of damaging them for political purposes will not be suffered by the opinion shapers on TV and the ones writing these articles--the consequences will be suffered by ordinary people. Rittenhouse wasn't part of this problem--he was against the rioting, looting, burning and violence. When you stand against things like that it's not wise to do it from a place of weakness. Rittenhouse was not being anti-social, whatever the supposed limitations of his 17-year old mind may have been. He is clearly a young man of good character, even if he hails from an evidently ignorant family. If we have a society full of Rittenhouses we would be all right.

[vision]

Rittenhouse wasn't part of this problem--he was against the rioting, looting, burning and violence.

It's a shame he wasn't against cops murdering black people.

[Tunnelcat]

....If we have a society full of Rittenhouses we would be all right.

Oh dear God. Are you serious? I can just imagine a society full of hormone raging teen-aged males playing violent video games during the day, then going out and patrolling the streets at night armed to the teeth with semiautomatic rifles. Have forgotten your own adolescence? Hell, I remember the ★■◆● boys in my high school. No impulse control, no emotional maturity and enough testosterone to fuel an entire raging army. They were shitheads and caused a lot of trouble. Their idea of "fun" was to go out at night and throw eggs at people's houses, shoot pellet guns at people's car windows and slashing tires. Still is the national teen-aged pastime too. I can't imagine a bunch of these children patrolling the streets and not shooting everything in sight for the shear hell of it. Rittenhouse was TOO YOUNG to wield a weapon on the streets at night during a riot. He had no impulse control and no training and was put into a situation where he feared for his life. He obviously didn't think about that transpiring that night when he picked up his rifle. He thought he looked macho and would garner respect. That obviously didn't happen because he looked like a stupid kid with a gun. I don't like vandals, rioters and thieves anymore than you do, but this country has laws and the police to enforce them. If they can't do the job, we need to change things WITHIN our laws and not encourage vigilantism, especially the teen-aged variety. I'm also for protecting MY OWN PROPERTY with force if I have to, but if we ever get to that point, our society has devolved into chaos and everything goes to hell.

[Top Gun]

Ah yes, crazy gun-toting white kids are "young men of good character."

[Sergeant Thorne]

....If we have a society full of Rittenhouses we would be all right.

Oh dear God. Are you serious? I can just imagine a society full of hormone raging teen-aged males playing violent video games during the day, then going out and patrolling the streets at night armed to the teeth with semiautomatic rifles. Have forgotten your own adolescence? Hell, I remember the ★■◆● boys in my high school. No impulse control, no emotional maturity and enough testosterone to fuel an entire raging army. They were shitheads and caused a lot of trouble. Their idea of "fun" was to go out at night and throw eggs at people's houses, shoot pellet guns at people's car windows and slashing tires. Still is the national teen-aged pastime too. I can't imagine a bunch of these children patrolling the streets and not shooting everything in sight for the shear hell of it. Rittenhouse was TOO YOUNG to wield a weapon on the streets at night during a riot. He had no impulse control and no training and was put into a situation where he feared for his life. He obviously didn't think about that transpiring that night when he picked up his rifle. He thought he looked macho and would garner respect. That obviously didn't happen because he looked like a stupid kid with a gun. I don't like vandals, rioters and thieves anymore than you do, but this country has laws and the police to enforce them. If they can't do the job, we need to change things WITHIN our laws and not encourage vigilantism, especially the teen-aged variety. I'm also for protecting MY OWN PROPERTY with force if I have to, but if we ever get to that point, our society has devolved into chaos and everything goes to hell.

You and I have very different perspectives on the ranges of character found in young men. I think you need to meet the sort of young man who would have EMT training and knows how to responsibly handle a gun. I was very responsible in my adolescence, and I've known both men who were the same way, and men who were more like you describe. I'll remind you that the man he ended up shooting first had already said that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. You probably know about the man's background. I don't agree with making his past his present in order to win the point, but knowledge of that taken together with his behavior in the riot is ample evidence that he was not all right. He wasn't the only one rioting, but he was the only one who was shot. When Rittenhouse was running down the street afterwards and he was beginning to be mobbed, only the people who were a specific threat to Rittenhouse were shot. The circumstances speak to a great deal of restraint and certainly some maturity on Rittenhouse's part. Just like when he insisted on turning himself in. You're off-base.

[Spidey]

Rittenhouse wasn't part of this problem--he was against the rioting, looting, burning and violence.

It's a shame he wasn't against cops murdering black people.

And, how do you know he's not?

I'm against police murdering black people, but I'm also against looting and rioting.

Do you think they are mutually exclusive or something?

[vision]

Everyone remember that video the prosecution wasn't able to use in the trial? The one where Rittenhouse voiced the desire to shoot at shoplifters? Real hero there.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm not being off base. He may have had the intelligence to get EMT training, but he didn't have the emotional brain structure to understand that being a teenager and carrying a weapon he couldn't legally own because of his age, in the middle of a violent riot no less, was a REALLY BAD IDEA. He'd already stated to others that he'd like to shoot those rioters in that video that I and vision posted. You'll notice that none of those Kenosha Guard ADULTS ever shot anyone, nor were they targeted for attack. The rioters obviously figured a stupid teenager was an easy mark. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE AT ALL! Rittenhouse was at that age where he was and technically still is, an "in beweener". Just his act of going to that riot with that weapon in the first place proves the point.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... s-maturity

Pruning the Brain

What happens is that the brain prunes itself, going through changes that will allow a young person to move into adult life effectively. “Ineffective or weak brain connections are pruned in much the same way a gardener would prune a tree or bush, giving the plant a desired shape,” says Alison Gopnik, professor of child development at UC Berkley.

Adolescents experiencing these brain changes can react emotionally, according to Ian Campbell, a neurologist at the U.C. Davis Sleep Research Laboratory. Mood swings and uncooperative and irresponsible attitudes can all be the result of these changes. Sometimes, students can’t explain why they feel the way they do. Their brain is changing from a child brain to an adult brain.

Regions that specialize in language, for example, grow rapidly until about age 13 and then stop. The frontal lobes of the brain which are responsible for high-level reasoning and decision-making aren’t fully mature until the early 20s, according to Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, a neuroscientist at Harvard’s Brain Imaging Center. There’s a portion of time when the child part of the brain has been pruned, but the adult portion is not fully formed. They are “in-between" — informed but not prepared.

[Spidey]

Scumbags with fully developed adult brains are out there looting, rioting, committing arson, destroying livelihoods and causing a lot of social unrest, but of course a misguided child is the real problem.

[Tunnelcat]

Yeah, I agree, to a point. A mob has it's own mentality and in Portland and Seattle, the motley Antifa bozos are mostly young people that like to destroy things and hurt people just for the hell of it. They could care less if they're making Black people look bad. They just want to have fun, burn and break things and assault people. Of course once they get going, many in the mob join in. Just watch what happened to a local 73 year old woman resident who tried to put out a riot started fire. The main assaulter is a young woman too. I now stay the hell away from downtown Portland at all costs anymore. I'm sure the local businesses don't like that metric now either, but hey, until law and order is restored, not happening.



In fact, in most of my local municipalities, the police forces are down people and they can't find decent new recruits, especially since so many have been tried and convicted of manslaughter as of late, so patrols have dropped off. I see the need to reign in the police killing or assaulting black people far and above the what happens with whites. But what's happening now is that traffic laws are being violated with impunity, burglaries and thefts are way up (catalytic converter theft is rampant and you can't leave your car parked outside) and assaults and road rage incidents have shot through the roof. People on my local Nextdoor are posting about people being jerks on the road and violating school speed limits. I hate even driving on the freeway or leaving my house unattended for long periods of time this crap has gotten so bad. This whole De-fund the Police trope was stupid. I could have told you this very crap was going to happen, especially during a pandemic where people's social lives were being thrown into chaos.

[Krom]

Police funding is actually up. De-fund the police is a stupid meme that never even got the slightest bit of real traction.

[Tunnelcat]

It's gone up in Portland too. People in the affected neighborhoods threw a fit over the rise in crime, the riots and all the tear gas constantly filtering into their homes. If anything, the police have gotten more funding all over the country since the BLM protests. However, with the convictions of Kim Potter and Derrick Shovin, police are now having a hard time getting recruits because those potential recruits fear they will be prosecuted just for performing their job, even if they make a mistake. Kim Potter got 16 months for accidentally grabbing her gun instead of her taser. That punishment wasn't even enough in the family's eyes for losing their son. Now they're out there protesting in front of the judge's home, like that's going to fix things for them. It's not.

[Ferno]

'Defund the police' was such a stupid name for the objective. It really should have been called 'optimize the police' - to give a better impression that the focus should have been on better policework, without them having to do everything else that was recently saddled on them.

[vision]

Scumbags with fully developed adult brains are out there looting, rioting, committing arson, destroying livelihoods and causing a lot of social unrest, but of course a misguided child is the real problem.

That kid killed someone. Don't forget, lives are more important that property. Seems I have to keep reminding the right-wingers in this thread. What happened to being pro-life?

[Krom]

What happened to being pro-life?

Conservatives are only against killing children before they can hold a gun and defend themselves.

[Spidey]

The only property that was defended with deadly force was his own life.

[vision]

The only property that was defended with deadly force was his own life.

Ah yes, this is what's called backtracking in a conversation. You first make a garbage statement, then revise it to sound better later. Galaxy brain stuff.

[Spidey]

Ah yes, this is the point where I don't have a proper retort, better start the lies and personal insults.