tvc184

Yes. I have seen enough comments from people reading the news articles and some claim this is all about race. Yesterday I watched an MSNBC Producer and commentator on the show, The Young Turks, admit that she thought Rittenhouse chased down the first guy and shot him. Now with a video from the trail, she has seen that it was Rittenhouse running for his life and the convicted sex offender chasing him down. Oop….. But I wonder where she got this bogus information to begin with? Gee, could it be from the news media is not reporting there facts? You have a white guy who is accused of shooting three white guys and he has charges brought by a white district attorney, defended by white lawyers in front of a white judge… And it’s all about race? There are so many claims that Rittenhouse illegally possessed the firearm (he was a couple of months too young) or he lived out of state or he could’ve been somewhere else and somehow any of that negates the right of self defense AND should cause murder charges to be brought. HUH? Actually there is some validity to race game. Let’s play my favorite game, what if. So let’s make this about race. What if a young black female in Wisconsin is walking in an area of town that is not so good. She is doing nothing wrong and is simply walking home. A convicted sex offender attacks her, trying to sexually assault and maybe kill her. The young woman pulls a handgun out of her purse and shoots and kills a guy. It is clearly a case of lawful self-defense. However… The young woman is 21 years old but did not get a concealed handgun license. In Wisconsin you can carry openly but can only conceal if you have a license. In other words, she could’ve had it in a holster on the outside of her purse or worn it in a holster attached are jeans or something similar and it would be legal. Unfortunately she stuck it inside her purse. That is a crime in Wisconsin and even though she is lawfully in her right of self-defense the DA charges her with murder not because in self-defense was unlawful but because she illegally possess a handgun. So now this woman who actually defended her life against a sexual predator, is facing life in prison. And… Like Rittenhouse, she was a part of town she shouldn’t have been in. Yes it was legal and she has a right to come and go but it was not the smartest thing in the world. For that reason, let’s charge her with Murder. Some of the same people who are complaining about Rittenhouse would almost certainly have a different opinion. Far from being put on trial for murder, she would be seen as a roll model of a young black woman standing up for herself. If the DA brought charges against her with the facts as I have described, there would be large protests outside of the court room and they might turn into riots. How many people doubt that would be true? People from the left would be claiming that maybe she does have some charges for concealing a handgun (or maybe not even then) but you can’t translate that into murder charges. You can’t say that she did not make a wise choice in where she walked so she deserves to go to prison for life….. yet that is exactly what some of the same people are saying about Kyle Rittenhouse. So maybe some peoples’ opinion it was about race. I feel like many of the people who are now happy that Kyle Rittenhouse is being charged with murder would have an exact opposite opinion if it was as my what if scenario. I also think that people who are defending Rittenhouse, would also defend this theoretical black female and not want her in prison for killing a violent sex offender and defending her own life.

Judge you? 😂 I have read that also that he is a convicted felon. If that’s true, with the video and his admission under oath, if he is not prosecuted, that is a miscarriage of justice.

OK, I just looked up Wisconsin firearm law and it does require a license from Wisconsin or a reciprocal state to carry concealed. If the guy that Rittenhouse shot does not have a concealed carry license, he committed a crime. I believe in his testimony he said he accidentally pointed at Rittenhouse. That leads me to 3 conclusions. 1. he probably admitted to a crime while on the witness stand. 2. he lied under oath (which can’t be proven 3. I am sure he intentionally pointed at Rittenhouse meaning that he likely committed aggravated assault and a felony which is why he said that he accidentally did so while under oath. Let’s see, you were chasing a guy with a rifle and you see him fall down, you know that you have a pistol in your hand and you run up to this guy who is now laying on his back and you pointed at him… But it was an accident. If that is true, why did you run up on Rittenhouse with a pistol in your hand while Rittenhouse is holding a rifle? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I have not looked up this part of the Wisconsin law but I read a comment that in Wisconsin you can open carry a firearm but not concealed. The guy that got shot by Rittenhouse had a handgun and I don’t think it was exposed until he got on top of Rittenhouse and pointed it at him. That would mean the so-called victim was guilty of a crime and instead of Rittenhouse being indicted for shooting him. It should have been that guy that was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon…. Assuming the comment I read about Wisconsin firearm laws was true. Prosecutorial misconduct?

I know what they are going to try to do. With 2 first with murder charges, who really cares about an aggravated assault? I think they’re closing argument it’s going to be that we are stuck with the witnesses we were given but that does not negate the first to murder charges. I took time to read just a little bit of Wisconsin self-defense law last night. It is similar to Texas law in that it says a reasonable belief by the person using self-defense. It does not matter so much what happened but what was your thought process and would a person in your position think that it was reasonable. Hopefully the defense attorney is smart enough to use the prosecution case against them. The prosecution has spent time trying to portray Rittenhouse as an inexperienced kid. Instead of hurting him, I think that plays into his reasonable belief. It would be much easier to make the case against a trained police officer or maybe member of the military to say, they have had training and know exactly what they were doing. There is no reason for them to panic. Here you have a scared 17-year-old kid who is you by your own case, claimed as inexperienced but you want him prosecuted as if he was a trained swat team member. In other words, what is the reasonable belief of a trained shooter or self defense expert as opposed to the reasonably inexperienced 17-year-old?

Case closed!!!

Thanks for asking. 😀

That is true and maybe unfortunately, there is no requirement to back up our opinions.

Not the least. I have spent a lifetime trying to prove things. I have probably been to well over 30,000 crime scenes. When I asked questions like, how do you know that, I usually got, “well because”. Great but did you see it or know somebody that saw it or have some kind of evidence who caused it? “No but I know…….”. So I don’t take it is anti-police, which is okay too if that’s what you feel. Maybe I look at it from a different perspective but when somebody makes a claim and then shows a video as proof but the video does not show the proof….. Some might disagree but I don’t think police departments have political agendas. Individuals do. I have worked with probably over 600 police officers that have opinions all over the spectrum (although most are in a police paradigm). In 37 years I have never seen a chief, deputy chief/division commander or even politician (like mayor) even suggest that we go to a certain direction other than concentrating on some types of crimes or local issues. There is obviously different opinions in “how” that should be accomplished.

Most of our comments are opinions. Most news articles are fact as best the reporter can tell. As examples, it is a fact that Alec Baldwin shot and killed a woman, Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed a couple of people and used an AR-5, a crowd at a concert in Houston caused several deaths and injuries, etc. At this point whether criminal charges are valid, is an opinion. Saying that the police were arresting someone without legal justification on a political website is speculation or wishful thinking. As I said in at least a couple of places, the accusation still might be true. I don’t know but the websites you posted don’t back up the accusations I was mainly commenting on your statement that the police where arresting people “for doing absolutely nothing” which seems like a Who Wants To Be a Millionaire final answer based on a political opinion from a political website. You’re entitled to it and I have no problem with it. I was just pointing out that there is nothing on the pages that backs up author’s beliefs. While that seems like my opinion, I will stick with it as a fact. Nothing in those videos shows that the arrests were unlawful.

No but if you want to go back almost a decade, we could be discussing all kinds of stuff. Heck, let’s go back and discuss Obama’s first year…. It just does not seem relevant today.

Nate the lawyer and former police officer sums up the first week….

Typical Republican governor….. White privilege….. I was trying to preempt the liberal side. 😂

You said it was taken down for no reason but you found it? Maybe I’m missing that point. You also drew the conclusion that they were arrested for no reason. There is nothing in the videos that shows that. The video starts after the arrests so it’s easy to write a news article which is obviously slanted (but I am not negating validity), that puts out an opinion piece and then asks for donations. Maybe it was wrongful arrests and maybe their rights were violated but that will shake out in court. Opinion articles are interesting but that is what they are, one person’s opinion.

[Hidden Content]

I found the follow up on your first post. The man sued the officer individually for violating his rights. The United States District Court gave a summary judgment that cleared the officer because the man’s rights we’re not violating. That was an easy call before reading the article. While this is hardly interesting, it is a seven year old case. Was it relevant or something happening now or did you just happen to see it?

Obviously you didn’t think arson was covered under 1A. Disrupting a meeting as far as the crime.

The burn and loot stores under the First Amendment it’s a really ridiculous. Nobody has ever been allowed to commit a crime under the protection of the First Amendment. This guy violated the law, he was given opportunity to shut up and failed to do so. Maybe the DA for political purposes as well not accept charges. This is not rocket science.

Kneeled, game, Crosby 31-17

Crosby ball at 20

Intercepted in endzone.

1-10 Crosby 25 3-10 at 1:16

FG attempt is no good

3-4 from 20 pass incomplete 4-4 with timeout at 2:50

Personal foul to Nederland 27 3:50 in game