Waiting with baited breath

Posted on by

For the Rittenhouse verdict (and the soon-to-follow protest riots).

 

A couple of points though:

This is, essentially, a judgement on the right to defend oneself when attacked (Notice that people in the background  NOT attacking young Mr Rittenhouse were not threatened…only those who physically attacked him). Provocation, even if it were valid here, only goes so far. Rittenhouse was retreating/leaving the scene, yet he was attacked (a point the prosecution defense should have made much more vehemently) and then actively fleeing….therefore, even if a provocation, he was not a threat at the time of the attacks. One cannot shoot a person once they cease being a threat in any scenario….if they are leaving your house, even after attacking you, you cannot shoot them once they are leaving.

Further, if the (mostly peaceful!) protests are allowed to run rampant, not snuffed out quickly, then the State is saying that such riots are acceptable and allowed. This too has to stop. People need to be able to sleep at night without fear of rioters burning their homes and businesses. Without fear of being attacked on the street by a Mob. If the authorities cannot stop this, then at what point do the citizens have right, the responsibility, to do so themselves….by whatever method they choose?

7 thoughts on “Waiting with baited breath”

  1. You babble like this was a real ial instead of an obvious threat to anyone who would dare resist the Democratic riots “next time”. Democratic Administration refused to protect the town or its inhabitants and followed up with a persecution of a young man who acted to protect himself. And you just babble as if it wasn’t a show trial. Shame!

  2. Sorry you think it is babbling.
    Perhaps you can find a better blog to comment on then.
    Have a nice day.
    BTW, I don’t see YOUR blog out there giving commentary.
    “Those who can, do, those who cant….”

  3. seeing reports that the good people of kenosha are ramping up defenses for the coming riot. that will be a shock to the blm idiots. question: why are they so pissed about a white guy killing a bunch of white guys? okay, they were jewish, but blm has made antisemitic views known more than once. question 2: why were there so many jewish felons demonstrating for blm? is it really a mosaad op? or are they just hiring any thug they can find to do their bidding? the mind boggles.

  4. “One cannot shoot a person once they cease being a threat in any scenario….if they are leaving your house, even after attacking you, you cannot shoot them once they are leaving.” Oh…REALLY? Don’t tell me when, where or how I can’t plug some asshole!

    • You can do what you want, but if they are leaving, you’ll be charged with at least manslaughter.
      Once they are no longer a threat then the rules change.
      Lemme know how your interpretation of the rules works when yer in jail

  5. “Rittenhouse was retreating/leaving the scene, yet he was attacked (a point the prosecution should have made much more vehemently) …”

    I think you mean “a point the DEFENSE should have made…”

Comments are closed.