I see none of us are wanting to post in Rab's thread. Probably for the best since it's basically just an advertisement for Bernie lol.

Yes, I am being sarcastic and no, I do not carry a gun anymore nor wish to.  Back in my younger days, I use to carry all the time but then I found when you carry, your disposition to use your gun over anything else escalate.  Thought I am being sarcastic in nature, I do believe the though process of a lot of people that do carry today will be along these lines and for the truly bastards, well we might give them a way out like instigating an argument which ends in someone pulling out their gun and ala Halo (I know bad taste) finish the fight.  There have been multiple cases where simple arguments results in the use of deadly force and with cases like Rittenhouse, I only see this escalating more in the US.

Lol, I had a very nice write up for Rab thread but then I was working and wanted to think it over a bit and forgot about it which is something I do a lot.  I think I will attempt it again but I am sure Rab is not going to like one thing I have to say though I actually do agree with Bernie concerning the Military spending.

Hmm have you been reading around the web and forums since this verdict, that is exactly what a lot of people are saying they will do.  I am not insinuating that this will happen, it will happen.  When you bring a gun to any type of protest, you basically already set and escalated the event.  It only take one spark, one bad apple, one lose cannon, one idiot to ignite it.  Now you have a verdict like this that says, as long as you can claim self defense, you are free to use deadly force and kill.  Its not about just defending yourself, its a message that you can kill with the perceived opinion that you are in a situation that calls for deadly force.  So if you provoke an action, now I am free to kill and we will see more cases along this line because there have already been 10 that I know of.  Just because they did not get national attention does not mean we are not seeing such situations already.

People say they will do crazy things all the time. Let's see if anything happens. I haven't seen anything reported by major media outlets, and I'd imagine the liberal ones will absolutely highlight any little thing that happens the moment it happens.

Also, every jury is going to decide differently based on the different facts available and their own prejudices. Sure, we should all have impartial juries, but that just isn't realistic as we all have inherent biases that we can't get rid of. Juries don't set precedent, however, so this jury's outcome won't really impact any other jury's verdict for a similar/identical situation. I would imagine the vast majority of people won't want to run that risk.

Here is a question for you.  When Kyle walks up to protestors with his gun in his hand and not on his back, what is the immediate thought of anyone who witness this act. 

In my opinion, Its an act of aggression because no one knows the purpose or intent of the individual.  Do you wait until the person start shooting or do you act first.  If Kyle actually pointed his gun directly or indirectly at anyone where does this take us.  What we do not have is any particular law on engagement because anyone seeing someone walking around with their rifle out coming towards you is not going to believe you are out on some midnight stroll taking in the scenery.

Let me ask you one more question.

If the first shooting by Rittenhouse was not in self-defense, would his later action be justified, in your opinion?

Also, if you want my opinion, if a man shoots someone and begins to run away despite no immediate danger, he should have no right to claim self defense as long as he still has a gun in his hands.

This post and ones like it are EXACTLY why we can not come together.  The Left finds it all too easy to deify the absolute scum of the Earth, even convicted pedophiles, like the one Kyle shot, while demonizing decent people like Kyle. Then spout falsehoods that have been proven wrong, just to help their case.  They also love calling riots mostly peaceful protests or demonstrations.  Those that actually watched the trial are either happy about the acquittal, or at the very least, accepting of it because there was no other outcome to be had given the evidence.  Speaking of lying, I just watched a report that showed a black family talking on screen as the news caster said that the families of the victim were talking.  There were no freaking black victims!  God I hope Kyle sues the Hell out of the MSM just like Nick Sandman.

Here's some things factually wrong with your post:

The gun was not obtained illegally, which is why it was thrown out.  The judge had the law read aloud in the courtroom and it obviously didn't pertain to the gun Kyle had.  Also, even though the media continued to report it as so, he did not cross state lines with it.  You know who did have a gun illegally?  The piece of garbage who tried to shoot Kyle after Kyle lowered his weapon because the guy acted like he was backing off.

By the way, that judge was awesome.  Didn't put up with the prosecutions BS tactics to sway the jury.  Implying that Kyle was guilty because he remained silent after being released from custody.  Lying about someone having charges against them so HIS 5th Amendment rights were why he wasn't there. Oh, the irony.  And if by some horrible outcome the jury found him guilty, he probably would have thrown out the case based on the fact that the prosecution didn't provide the HD footage of the incident to defense, instead giving them a low quality version, and then lying about why that may have happened.  They also tried to use a low quality image produced with AI, whose SW manual strongly advises against using such images in court, as proof Kyle raised his gun at people before he was attacked.

Also stop with the tired old, "Oh I'm not against guns or self-defense, BUT..."  Your side does it so often, we don't believe you anymore.  The real stance is, "I need a gun, or my security staff do, but you normal people don't need them.  Just call the police, that we also dislike and want to defund, as well as will call off when it's our side protesting/rioting (Well, until they get near our houses.)"  Because if you actually believed in self-defense you would be happy at the outcome of this case, and not make excuses as to why people can't use self-defense unless it's in an extremely specific case.

Your excuse here is he was looking for trouble.  Bullshit.  He was there in the community, where his family lived, for 1 1/2 days prior to the incident putting out fires, cleaning up, offering medical aid to the best of his ability, and painting over graffiti.  You know who was looking for trouble?  The rioters who were burning down business, destroying property, spraying that graffiti and, as it turned out, trying to hurt anyone who was stopping them.  You know what set off the psycho pedophile, who had just been released from a mental hospital and had screamed at Kyle earlier that day that he would kill him and wasn't afraid of going back to jail, into attacking Kyle in the first place?  Kyle had the gall to put out a fire he started.  The pedophile's buddy also had a gun, which he fired first.  This is what started the whole turn of events that night.

Oh look, you said a riot was just a demonstration.  Imagine that.

"Let me ask you one more question.

If the first shooting by Rittenhouse was not in self-defense, would his later action be justified, in your opinion?"

>Well then things get more interesting here. I'd definitely be less sympathetic...

The fact that Kyle was always fleeing goes a long way for me. Then Rosenbaum's aggressive behavior prior to his shooting and the fact that he was the one chasing costs me sympathy points for him.

"Also, if you want my opinion, if a man shoots someone and begins to run away despite no immediate danger, he should have no right to claim self defense as long as he still has a gun in his hands."

>What if the first shot was in self defense? And then during his retreat, another immediate danger develops? I say in this situation, he maintains a right to self defense.

So if you start something and then flee why would that make you the innocent.  I would agree that chasing someone with a gun and you are unarmed is absolutely stupid but the real facts here is that Kyle is very lucky he is not the one dead. 

If I walk up to you with my gun in my hand and you take it as an act of aggression, who is in the right.  No one knows the intention of anyone who walks around with their gun in their hands towards anyone.  If you are in a park with your family and someone walks towards your family with their gun in their hands, do you wait until they start shooting or would you put them down.  We continue to forget that the act of engagement determine the perception of everyone in this incident.  Kyle was walking around with his gun in his hands and just like Kyle can declare self defense, what's the difference from anyone else.  If he points the gun anytime at anyone, the act of engagement changes and there is no self defense claim to be made.

The same people who defend the police when they fear for their safety when someone has a weapon seem to just toss that out on this case.  If you walk up to a police officer with your gun in your hand and they put you down, you would say that the police officer was justified.  The main issue with Kyle is that he thought he was in call of duty, walking around with his gun in his hands presenting a clear and present danger to anyone.

The major problem in the US is there is no clear policy on engagement.  Everyone can be armed but how does anyone determine who is the idiot with the gun or a responsible gun owner.  

Anyway, chasing someone with a gun was stupid, if you have a gun and pull it out, you definitely need to be prepared to use it or you get your arm blown off.  My real problem with this case goes along the lines of the gun culture in the US more than Kyle himself or him getting off.  We will continue to see more of these engagements and without any clear policy along what is permissible, then its going to be shoot first and ask questions later.

Gun owners say, you have a clear right to walk around with your gun and in that same instance, I have a clear right to self defense if you walk towards me or my family with your gun in your hands.  Do I wait until you shoot or do I act first and deal with the court case later.