Seen on the street in Kyiv.

Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie

"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck, A/K/A Dolt-45,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset., A/K/A P01135809

Friday, November 19, 2021

Imagine if Rittenhouse was a Black Dude

He'd have been shot by the cops right there. And there is no way he'd have gotten off.

Still, he could be charged Federally for participating in a straw purchase, or something like that.

America: Being white has its privileges.


B said...

Or he could have gotten justice just like happened here.
The Deep South style of "racial injustice" doesn't exist so much since the 70's or so, especially in Wisconsin.

You gotta get over it, my dear. Times have changed in the past 45 years or so.
Realize that Blacks people kill more black people and get away with it than whites.

JustMusing said...

Jury nullification and white privilege at work. Not to mention the machinations of the Judge.

Comrade Misfit said...

FYI: There is a certain Id10t whose comments will never pass moderation.

But he keeps trying.

Some people are mightily slow on the uptake.

(Regular readers know the perp. Guesses will be deleted.)

csm said...

Imagine a 17 year old black kid goes to the capitol with an assault rifle and a "medical kit" to protect property. And shoots a couple of bigots, err "patriots" along the way. First, he probably wouldn't have made it out alive, one of the cops he might have been trying to protect might have shot him. But if he had, these same racists cheering on Rittenhouse would not be calling the kid a hero. Proof? Just like how they came after Lt. Michael Byrd, the officer that shot Ashli Babbitt while doing his job to protect congress. Not only did they not call him a hero for protecting congress, including their own, but called for his head, that he be prosecuted.

Dark Avenger said...

As Ten Bears would remind us, don’t pay attention to it. A troll feeds on attention as Antaeus gained strength when he touched this Mother Earth.

zdogk9 said...

I'm not quite clear; Do you disagree with the jury's verdict?
Why are you throwing something totally unrelated to the case out?
I would think recent events in Texas where a 17 year old shot up his scholl would disprove your rant.

Richard said...

I don't see any justice in this verdict. That stupid boy needs to make amends to the people he killed and injured.
He shouldn't have been there. He had no business being there. I'm not saying he should be killed, or locked up until he is old, but he owes something.
He owes an apology and he owes some time for what he did. What he did was wrong.

Also, i know you like guns and all that. Do you think he should have been carrying one? That stupid boy had no business being there and I'm not going to support him. Consequences.

B said...

Just Musing:

How do you get to jury nullification?
The Jury spoke, and their verdict stood.
How is that "nullification"?

Comrade Misfit said...

Rittenhouse is going to start sucking at the Wingnut Welfare teat. He'll never have to work an honest day for the rest of his life.

Which may not be a matter of choice for him. He's defined his life by what he did.

JustMusing said...


I don't think you understand juror or jury nullification.

B said...

I do understand it, and I think that using that as an excuse for why Rittenhouse was found Not Guilty is a stretch.

Has it ever occurred to you that he walked simply because the facts showed his claim of Self Defense? That the Prosecutor failed to make his case?

Forget what I think, or you think, it matters what the Jury thought. Unless you can show where they chose your scenario, let's assume the jury was a bunch of honest people that ruled based on the evidence presented....which was pretty clear.

DTWND said...

A verdict of not guilty does not equate to innocence. Rittenhouse is an idiot kid who was influenced by right wing propaganda which spurred him into actions for which he had no training nor experience. Most sane adults would have told him to stay away and let the authorities handle whatever situation arose. And yet, most of what I see from supposed adults that support this child is that they regard him as a hero, someone who took the vigilante action that the adult cowards were too scared to take themselves. Or were they smart enough to realize that the actions the child took were not the correct ones. If the second hypothesis is correct, then it can be inferred that the “adults” that directed this child did him a disservice in not advising him correctly.

But what do I know. Really, not much more than anyone else that wasn’t involved in the kid’s life.


B said...

How is being attacked (with deadly force) and defending oneself "Vigilante Action"?
He didn't hunt them down, they attacked him. He even ran first and tried to escape as the videos plainly show.
Please, I'd like to know how you can conclude what you stated. Not looking for a fight, just trying to understand how you can make the statement you did.

Having asked that, I agree that he would have been better served by staying home. But his right to walk the streets that night unmolested was as good as the other folks out there that night.

DTWND said...

The vigilante action I refer to is the kid “protecting” property that he had no ownership or interest in, and “assisting” the police in crowd control. The fact that he was open carrying a rifle, while not in any kind of regulation uniform, among a crowd of “protesters” seems like a poor personal choice, don’t ya think?

I’m not debating his “right” to walk the streets that night. I AM challenging the decision made by the kid to insert himself into that volatile situation without the training to do so; as well as questioning the judgement of the “adults” in his life that influenced his state of mind (thinking, yeah, let’s get a 17year old kid a rifle and turn him loose in a city in another state unsupervised).

Actions have consequences, correct? And if we could somehow magically remove the kid from the situation, they’d most likely still be alive. I’m not saying he has to be incarcerated for eternity, but perhaps some jail time, as well as some type of restitution to the families may have been in order. I mean, Law and Order, ammirite?


B said...

SO what about the Protesters that attacked him and who ended up shot?
Are you gonna apply the same metric to them? They had no reason to be there, no reason to attack, and some of them were carrying firearms.
Or are protesters in an "approved" riot under different rules?

I find it interesting that you claim that him being there is the cause of this, rather than the attackers choosing to attempt to injure him as the cause of this. He didn't shoot at anyone until they became a threat. He even tried to run away before shooting when left with no other choice. Had those other three left him alone two would not be dead and another injured for life. (and that is, essentially, what the jury decided). Those not attacking him, yet on the scene were in no way threatened, only the folks physically attacking.

Comrade Misfit said...

The guy with the Glock normally would be fêted by your side, B, for intervening in an active shooter scenario. He wasn’t charged.

The other two guys are dead.

DTWND said...

Geez, B. Don’t try to twist the argument. Maybe some of the protesters WERE armed. How many did THEY kill and wound with their weapons?

Their reason to be there? Um, they were protesting the the police shooting of Jacob Blake four times in the back. The kid’s reason to be there? To keep the peace? Really? He wasn’t trained for that job. He wasn’t equipped for that job. He decided it would be a good idea to go in ‘lone wolf’, brandishing a long gun (cause he certainly didn’t conceal it). Jeez, this isn’t the Wild West.

A valid argument can be made that those on the right should bear some responsibility for inciting the kid’s behavior. Your side made the claims that the Democrats and Clinton were running a child prostitution ring in the basement of a New York pizza shop, remember? And those statements encouraged a North Carolina MAN to drive up and attempt to ‘free’ the children. Your side has berated those that question the actions of police departments that are taken against people of color. Can’t you see the similarities?

And before you try to put words in my mouth, and use “whataboutism”, any protesters that vandalize or create destruction SHOULD be prosecuted. You like to use the phrase “approved people” here and on your own blog. The inference is that the left alone is to decide what and who are allowed to do whatever they want. Many would view that as the pot calling the kettle black. A disingenuous argument at least.

Finally, yes. The kid being there WAS the cause of the deaths of two people and injuring a third. IF he had stayed away, those three would have been fine. IF he was not brandishing a long gun, those three would have no idea to try to disarm him. IF he was carrying a concealed weapon, no one would have known and would have left him alone. Again, three people would have been fine. Did the kid’s second amendment rights supersede the protesters first amendment rights? Are YOU the one to decide who gets their rights upheld and who gets theirs trampled?

I’m done. If you can’t see that the kid had a majority of the responsibility of the events that occurred, then nothing I or anyone else can say will change your closed mind.


B said...

And if he hadn't angered them by using a fire extinguisher to put out the dumpster fire they set, they'd not have attacked him.

I'm not gonna get into an argument with you about this. Fact is that he was attacked and defended himself. That is what the videos showed and what the jury found. You can twist all the rest as much as you wish, but those are the facts. Whatever twisted logic you use to justify that is bullshit. You know it as well as I do....But you are lying to yourself every time you say it and you know it.

By your logic, you could claim that Mr Arbery was provoking the attack that got him shot by a bunch of racist rednecks....which is also not true.

I'm out of this as well. You can't see clearly past the Liberal viewpoint that the Media told you to believe.