Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Derec]

I don't know why you are doubling down on Rittenhouse's criminal activities but fine, we'll go with that.

What "criminal activities" has he been convicted of, exactly?

Kyle Rittenhouse conspired with Dominick Black to illegally purchased an AR-15 which he then illegally carried after curfew on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin

So, now you are calling it a criminal conspiracy? It's more like you are doubling down on exaggerating anything Ritt did, while downplaying everything those who attacked him that night did.

during a multi-day protest that became rioting at night in an apparent attempt to bolster a militia that was trying to exert an authority they did not lawfully possess.

Afaik, he and Black were invited by a business owner to protect it. They were not part of any "militia".

If he was a black male teenager you'd call that proof he was a thug, that he knowingly and deliberately provoked the white guy who bravely chased after him and unjustifiably shot the white guys who tried to disarm him.

Nonsense. Had he been black, and everything else the same, my stance would be the same. Would yours?

I'm not certain you'd be calling for the death penalty but I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

More nonsense.

Rosenbaum pled guilty to two counts of sexual conduct with a minor.

Wording of the law does not change the fact that he molested children.

Are you interested in getting the facts straight or do you just want to stand on your soapbox and rant?

It is a fact that 9-11 year old boys are prepubescent children.

Okay, soapbox it is.
Have fun with your strawmen spouting Ad Hominems.

It is not an ad hominem or strawman to point out the hypocrisy of insisting that 17 year old girls are "children" who absolutely cannot consent to sex with an adult, while at the same time calling molesting 9-11 year old boys "sexual conduct with a minor" and refusing to acknowledge that these were children, not merely minors.

 

[Derec]

Where as a person who fits the profile of many many mass shooters open carrying a rifle can reasonably be considered threatening.

What has the world come to when people feel threatened by a strange person walking around with an assailt rifle?! It's unfathomable!

First of all, it wasn't an assailt[sic] rifle, and not even an assault rifle.
"Assault rifle" is a specific term and refers to small caliber military rifles of intermediate power and range, and capable of automatic fire. Civilian rifles modelled on assault rifles are not themselves assault rifles.
Also, "whereas" is one word, but I digress.

Second, many people on the #BLM/Antifa side were going around armed with AR15 and AK47 style rifles during the insanity of 2020. People who illegally and with armed force occupied the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle. People who illegally and with armed force occupied the University Ave. area in Atlanta around the Wendy's they burned down. One of them murdered an 8 year old girl during that occupation. Garrett Foster in Austin, TX. That last one was shot and killed because somebody perceived him to be a threat.
What do you (and Jimmy) think of them?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

If she hadn't been wearing such a short skirt she wouldn't have gotten herself raped?

That is pathetic! Are you for real? The parallel fails on several fronts. Most importantly, the issue of the third party HARMING the first party. Your ridiculous rape comment would be the exact opposite of that. A woman third party that is standing somewhere is generally not going to be considered a threat to someone's life. Where as a person who fits the profile of many many mass shooters open carrying a rifle can reasonably be considered threatening.

What has the world come to when people feel threatened by a strange person walking around with an assailt rifle?! It's unfathomable!

Assault*. But whatever.

 

[Derec]

I doubt very much had Rittenhouse done what he did, but in a hospital as a medical provider, you be making the same defenses? Well yes, he wasn't technically trained to perform surgery, but the victim... So why are you cloaking his utterly unqualified position as a peacekeeper?

Different things are different. Video at 11.

I haven't provided much defense for the armed people. A lot of people made some really bad decisions that night. But for some reason, you feel the need to defend Rittenhouse, who has shown no remorse for his reckless actions. To me, his actions after the killings speaks extremely poor of himself.

He defended himself against attack. In regard to that, he did nothing wrong. And it is only in that regard that I defend him. I do not defend his politics. I do not defend his decision to come to an active riot. Even if his motives were good, and I think they were, it was still dangerous and reckless. But note, as much as Rittenhouse had no business being there that night, neither did the others, including Rosenbaum, Huber und Grosskreutz.

 

[Arctish]

I don't know why you are doubling down on Rittenhouse's criminal activities but fine, we'll go with that.

What "criminal activities" has he been convicted of, exactly?

You appear to be attempting to twist my words into a strawman argument. I did not say he had been convicted. I said "I don't know why you are doubling down on Rittenhouse's criminal activities" and then referenced your claim that Rittenhouse bought the AR-15.

If your interpretation is correct, then Rittenhouse illegally purchased a long gun. Since that purchase required the knowledge and consent of Black, the two must have conspired to violate the federal laws regarding gun purchases that prevented Rittenhouse from going to a licensed gun dealer himself and making that purchase without involving Black.

That is the criminal activity.

I said Black legally purchased the weapon using Rittenhouse's money with the intention of giving the gun to Rittenhouse when he was of legal age to have it in his possession. That is skirting the law but not breaking it.

You keep claiming Rittenhouse violated gun laws. I don't.

Kyle Rittenhouse conspired with Dominick Black to illegally purchased an AR-15 which he then illegally carried after curfew on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin

So, now you are calling it a criminal conspiracy? It's more like you are doubling down on exaggerating anything Ritt did, while downplaying everything those who attacked him that night did.

If Rittenhouse didn't have Black's knowledge and consent to do what you claim he did, then he must have used Black like a patsy.

That's even worse.

during a multi-day protest that became rioting at night in an apparent attempt to bolster a militia that was trying to exert an authority they did not lawfully possess.

Afaik, he and Black were invited by a business owner to protect it. They were not part of any "militia".

I would refresh your memory about Rittenhouse being with the militia and your words regarding his intention to protect businesses but we're not at that point yet.

Right now we are discussing whether Rittenhouse bought the AR-15 as you claim, or if Black bought it like I said.

 

[Emily Lake]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

If she hadn't been wearing such a short skirt she wouldn't have gotten herself raped?

That is pathetic! Are you for real? The parallel fails on several fronts. Most importantly, the issue of the third party HARMING the first party. Your ridiculous rape comment would be the exact opposite of that. A woman third party that is standing somewhere is generally not going to be considered a threat to someone's life. Where as a person who fits the profile of many many mass shooters open carrying a rifle can reasonably be considered threatening.

You're quite literally excusing the assault of a minor on the grounds that the minor brought it on himself by having shown poor judgement. Your logic is the same logic used to excuse assaults of women on the grounds that the woman brought it on themselves by having shown poor judgement.

That Rittenhouse showed supremely poor judgement isn't really in question. I've yet to interact with anyone who doesn't think he should have stayed home, or at a minimum shouldn't have been armed. That's not in dispute.

What is in dispute, however is whether Rittenhouse having made a poor decisions deprives him of the right to self defense.

 

[Emily Lake]

I haven't provided much defense for the armed people. A lot of people made some really bad decisions that night. But for some reason, you feel the need to defend Rittenhouse, who has shown no remorse for his reckless actions. To me, his actions after the killings speaks extremely poor of himself.

Poor actions afterward, lack of remorse... are those sufficient to deprive him of the right to self defense?

The reason people end up defending Rittenhouse isn't because any of us think he was a great guy or some other stupid shit. It's because other people absolutely insist on framing him as a murderer, and go to great lengths to blame him for a grown ass adult man chasing and assaulting a minor.

 

[Emily Lake]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

If she hadn't been wearing such a short skirt she wouldn't have gotten herself raped?

That is pathetic! Are you for real? The parallel fails on several fronts. Most importantly, the issue of the third party HARMING the first party. Your ridiculous rape comment would be the exact opposite of that. A woman third party that is standing somewhere is generally not going to be considered a threat to someone's life. Where as a person who fits the profile of many many mass shooters open carrying a rifle can reasonably be considered threatening.

What has the world come to when people feel threatened by a strange person walking around with an assailt rifle?! It's unfathomable!

What has the world come to when people feel justified attacking someone because they feel threatened by that person engaging in a legal action?

Have you ever even bothered to consider how you would feel had the roles been reversed? If Rittenhouse was an armed protester, who was chased, cornered, and assaulted by a counter-protester? Because I'm like 98% sure you'd be deriding the person who did the initial attacking, and you would NOT be defending them on the basis that a protester was visibly armed. At the end of the day, I'm fairly certain that you support the cause of the protesters... and as a result of that, you view any action by those opposed to the rioters as being on the "wrong side" and therefore bad.