thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Aug 30, 2020 17:17:47 GMT -8
It's unfortunate that no one seems to care about the rape victim in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Aug 30, 2020 19:30:26 GMT -8
Where did you get that? Those offenses (by the other Kyle Rittenhouse) were from 2016 (the Kenosha kid would have been 13 years old, and one in 2018 where he would have been 15 years old). Nice try Vile Pagan! Another face-plant...epic fail! He was a felon because he was committing multiple felonies. I made no comment whatsoever about any criminal record he may or may not have had at the time of his offenses. Who the heck is the "other" Kyle Rittenhouse and why are you dragging him into the thread? You're off on some bizarre tangent about another person entirely and you accuse me of an epic fail? ROFL. Too funny. I've got news for you genius. Being charged with a felony does not make you a felon. Being convicted of a felony does. So you are wrong anyway. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Aug 30, 2020 20:04:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Aug 31, 2020 5:16:51 GMT -8
It's unfortunate that no one seems to care about the rape victim in this case. It's unfortunate you think this is relevant to what happened to Mr. Blake or the riots in Kenosha. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Aug 31, 2020 5:23:14 GMT -8
I've got news for you genius. Being charged with a felony does not make you a felon. Being convicted of a felony does. So you are wrong anyway. I've got news for you Einstein...your fellow conservatives engage in this kind of speculation all the time...read Credo's post following yours...any problem with him assuming people are guilty? Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old when he illegally carried a firearm to a riot where he used this illegally possessed firearm to shoot and kill two people. No speculation...those are facts not in dispute. This means he did commit more than one felony and he will be convicted of those crimes. You can try to portray him as a victim and a hero but your hero is going to prison. Like so many others that you admire and supported...why is that? |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Sept 1, 2020 19:21:48 GMT -8
Joe Biden might as well not waste his time campaigning in Wisconsin. Oh, wait--he's hiding in his basement anyway, so never mind...
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 1, 2020 19:23:15 GMT -8
It's unfortunate that no one seems to care about the rape victim in this case. It's unfortunate you think this is relevant to what happened to Mr. Blake or the riots in Kenosha. Wrong. What is unfortunate is that you think it isn't relevant. Caring about the rape victim changes one perspective in this case. Understanding that Blake broke his restraining order and once more sexually assaulted the victim that morning makes one realize that the woman, not Blake was the victim. Blake was a convicted felon, with an outstanding warrant, committing additionally felonies when he had his police encounter and resisted arrest. To portray Mr. Blake as a victim or to riot on his behalf, one would have to be an ignorant misogynist. 100% relevant. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Sept 2, 2020 1:34:16 GMT -8
Joe Biden might as well not waste his time campaigning in Wisconsin. Oh, wait--he's hiding in his basement anyway, so never mind... Trump may be a lot of things, but seeing this makes me think of the one thing the Democrat party does not represent my vision of... U-S-A |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 2, 2020 4:30:45 GMT -8
Looks like a pretty dismal showing of support for trump. It's not like Kenosha is a small town. Not a lot of black folks in those pics either...I wonder why? After all he's done more for blacks than any other president in the history of the universe! ROFL.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 2, 2020 4:33:47 GMT -8
It's unfortunate you think this is relevant to what happened to Mr. Blake or the riots in Kenosha. 100% relevant. 100% irrelevant..unless you think he was shot seven times in the back because of the sexual assault...or the violation of a retraining order...you're just attempting to justify bad policing by making the shootee look bad. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 2, 2020 17:19:36 GMT -8
100% irrelevant..unless you think he was shot seven times in the back because of the sexual assault...or the violation of a retraining order...you're just attempting to justify bad policing by making the shootee look bad. Pathetic. He was shot because he would not comply with police orders!!! All these thugs like George Floyd and Blake have to do is follow orders! It’s simple! What is pathetic is you sticking up for dangerous criminals who refuse to do what they are told. It’s not friggin rocket science! |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 2, 2020 18:07:25 GMT -8
100% irrelevant..unless you think he was shot seven times in the back because of the sexual assault...or the violation of a retraining order...you're just attempting to justify bad policing by making the shootee look bad. Pathetic. 100% relevant. When a convicted felon who has committed additional felonies that day (including the sexual assault of a woman with her child in the room) refuses to follow commands to drop a weapon and reaches inside a car, it is good policing to make him look like Swiss cheese. No cop is forced to gamble with his life and let the felon get a drop on them. You keep repeating "shot in the back" as if it is a negative thing. If a felon is ignoring your orders to stop and has turned his back to you as he reaches inside the car, where are you supposed to shoot him? Do you suggest waiting for said felon to come back out of the car and face you? You would most likely be dead. Do you shoot up in the air and hope the bullet comes down on his head? I know, I know, you hire one of those Hollywood special effects guys to allow you to make a bullet curve, so you can have the bullet make a 180 degree turn & hit him in the stomach!! Wait, Joe Biden has the answer, you shoot him in the leg... Sorry VP, in this scenario, good policing is to light the guy up, even if he is not facing you, and keep shooting until the best parts of him are running down the gutter. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Sept 2, 2020 19:55:30 GMT -8
100% irrelevant..unless you think he was shot seven times in the back because of the sexual assault...or the violation of a retraining order...you're just attempting to justify bad policing by making the shootee look bad. Pathetic. 100% relevant. When a convicted felon who has committed additional felonies that day (including the sexual assault of a woman with her child in the room) refuses to follow commands to drop a weapon and reaches inside a car, it is good policing to make him look like Swiss cheese. No cop is forced to gamble with his life and let the felon get a drop on them. You keep repeating "shot in the back" as if it is a negative thing. If a felon is ignoring your orders to stop and has turned his back to you as he reaches inside the car, where are you supposed to shoot him? Do you suggest waiting for said felon to come back out of the car and face you? You would most likely be dead. Do you shoot up in the air and hope the bullet comes down on his head? I know, I know, you hire one of those Hollywood special effects guys to allow you to make a bullet curve, so you can have the bullet make a 180 degree turn & hit him in the stomach!! Wait, Joe Biden has the answer, you shoot him in the leg... Sorry VP, in this scenario, good policing is to light the guy up, even if he is not facing you, and keep shooting until the best parts of him are running down the gutter. That Blake guy should feel fortunate he didn't get one in between the eyes after sexually assaulting that gal. Some of you may find that extreme, but I raised a couple girls, and have 4 granddaughters. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 3, 2020 3:16:00 GMT -8
100% irrelevant..unless you think he was shot seven times in the back because of the sexual assault...or the violation of a retraining order...you're just attempting to justify bad policing by making the shootee look bad. Pathetic. He was shot because he would not comply with police orders!!! No kidding....now tell me why he was shot seven times!!! |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 3, 2020 3:17:44 GMT -8
100% irrelevant..unless you think he was shot seven times in the back because of the sexual assault...or the violation of a retraining order...you're just attempting to justify bad policing by making the shootee look bad. Pathetic. Sorry VP, in this scenario, good policing is to light the guy up, even if he is not facing you, and keep shooting until the best parts of him are running down the gutter. Which proves you know nothing about police work or how to do it properly. |
|
