• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

MSNBC banned from Rittenhouse trial

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by Pavel Mosko, Nov 18, 2021.

  1. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +14,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I said "If". I also did not see actual tears when he broke down.

    He had no business being in that situation. He is a minor with no military or police training carrying a big gun. He should not have been walking alone with that gun. Whoever recruited him should have been more protective of those who came to help. Someone should have been with him. When do you ever see police all alone in a riot?? And they are trained and adults.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2021
  2. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +7,653
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    Did they edit his tears out too?

    Whether or not he had any business being in the situation in the first place isn't the point. Did a woman who got raped walking down the street at night have any business being there when she should have known better? Do people only have the right to defend themselves against attack if they are in places where other people think they should be?

    And considering that Rittenhouse worked there and his dad lived in that area gave him more rights to be there than people coming in just to riot.

    There was no evidence whatsoever that Rittenhouse acted in any other way besides self-defense. None. And a jury of 12 randomly drawn people all agreed unanimously.

    But mainstream media spent months upon months lying about everything.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  3. Justin-H.S.

    Justin-H.S. New Wineskins

    +934
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Engaged
    I don't think you can argue the facts with someone who obviously hasn't watched every minute of the trial. At that point you're only arguing with media talking points.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  4. pescador

    pescador Newbie Supporter

    +4,376
    Christian
    Married
    Commandment #6: You shall not kill. NET translator's note: “The verb רָצַח (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life.

    Rittenhouse killed two people and he will have to answer to God for taking those lives.
    Juries, lawyers, and judges are fallible but God is not.
     
  5. Michie

    Michie Human rights begin in the womb. Supporter

    +45,723
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Murder. Not kill. We all have a right to self defense. Too bad children in the womb do not have that luxury.
     
  6. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +14,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Who edited what? I did not see tears from his eyes at that time.

    It matters very much. He was walking alone during a riot with a big gun.
    That was dumb. Someone should have been with him.


    No, that really does not matter.
    Kenosha car lot owners didn't ask Kyle Rittenhouse to protect property

    KENOSHA - Two brothers whose family owns three car lots downtown told jurors in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial they never asked his group of armed men to protect their businesses or gave them permission to do so.

    Some from that group have previously testified a friend of a friend of Rittenhouse's who used to work at Car Source had offered to help, and Anmol "Sam" Khindri accepted, and gave keys to get inside the repair shop and a ladder to get on the roof.

    Khindri told jurors Friday he had no such conversations, nor did he offer keys to the shop. He recalled that early on Aug 25, 2020, Rittenhouse was among dozens of people who spoke to him with sympathy and encouragement after the family's main car lot had been burned on the first night of unrest.​



    Rittenhouse was naive, and ignorant. He had no business being there in the riot. (neither did the rioters). Like a typical teen, he probably saw himself as indestructible with no clear understanding of what he got himself into.

    The car dealership employees denied Rittenhouse and group were asked to be there.
     
  7. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +14,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    It is on us if we do something that sets up the situation.

    He killed 2 men and injured one. He had no business as a minor carrying around a big gun in a riot when the owners did not even ask that he be there.

    Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Car dealership workers testify

    "Did you ever have any discussions that day with anyone about protecting or guarding either of the Car Source locations, or Car Doctor?" Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger asked.
    Anmol Khindri, inventory manager at Car Source, replied: "No, sir."

    Khindri is one of the sons of the car dealership and repair shop's owner. The sons said Friday that they did not give permission for anyone to be inside or on the property, but one of the sons described interacting with Rittenhouse hours before the shootings – before the curfew began......



     
  8. Michie

    Michie Human rights begin in the womb. Supporter

    +45,723
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I’m just very happy justice was done on this case. :)
     
  9. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +7,653
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    Edited out the tears in the media that were trying to build up the false narrative that Rittenhouse was a vigilante white supremacist out to mow down as many black people as he could, and it was only the intervention of the "victims" that Rittenhouse "murdered" in the process that delayed him.

    A lot of people were armed, including with rifles. And a rifle was the only weapon that Rittenhouse was legally allowed to carry.

    There are no laws against being naive or ignorant. Even naive and ignorant people have the right to defend themselves, even in places where other people don't believe they should be. And for that matter where were the police in all of this? Why hadn't the National Guard been mobilized? Why did it ever get to the point where civilians and even underage teenagers believed that that it was up to them to try to help?

    Maybe had adults been doing their jobs, there would be no attempts at making a teenager into a scapegoat.

    As it is, I am thankful that the jurors went with the actual evidence.
     
  10. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +14,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I never read anything that he was a "vigilante white supremacist out to mow down as many black people as he could". I don't read far fringe stuff, but I watch Fox and MSNBC.
    I didn't see tears.


    But he didn't even need to be there. As to legality, the law was poorly written. It was written 30 years ago to allow 16-17 y.o. to be able to hunt. It was not about caring a AR-15 in a riot. Wisconsin needs to update the law.


    I believe there is a moral law about doing something ignorantly that causes a loss of life. He will have to live with that. The car dealership did not ask for his help.

    AS to the National Guard - it was mobilized. That they were slow to respond is a right wing talking point.


    I am not sure that they did, though I don't see intentional murder. But he should have called 911 as Rosenbaum lay dying instead of a friend. Former Marine Jason Lackowski did not see Rosenbaum as a threat and turned his back on him.

    He should never have put himself in the position he was in. But then the rioters should not have been rioting.
     
  11. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +7,653
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    And I saw his tears all over media, and a lot of mockery of them.

    Completely different issue that is irrelevant to the court case, and the very first thing that was tossed out during deliberations.

    So they claimed. They could be telling the truth. They could by lying. They could be telling the truth and thought they didn't ask anyone to help, but everyone interpreted it that way and so came.

    Even so and even without the car dealership, Rittenhouse had just as much right to be in the area as anyone, if not more since his family is local.

    I suppose their definition of "mobilized" differs from mine since I have this expectation of action vs. allowing rioters and everyone else to run rampant.

    Well I'm sure he was very calm and collected and able to clearly think and make perfect decisions, just like all the rest of us would surely do in a similar highly-threatening situation.

    12 different people all came to the same conclusion that the evidence clearly showed self defense, not criminal intent or behavior.
     
  12. pescador

    pescador Newbie Supporter

    +4,376
    Christian
    Married
    It's simple: Rittenhouse killed two people. God commanded us not to kill. He is guilty before God even if a jury exonerated him.
     
  13. iarwain

    iarwain Newbie

    387
    +207
    Christian
    In Relationship
    I thank God that for one more day at least, we live in a country where we have the right to self defense. There are many, many people in the US who want to take that away.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  14. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +14,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I saw the facial expressions. No actual tears. That was for himself, not the ones who died.


    No, his being there was not thrown out. The gun charge was thrown out.
    In the trial, the brothers who ran the car dealership said they did not ask him to be there. Kyle never had to be there in the first place.


    They swore to tell the truth. They testified that they did not ask Kyle to be there, or anyone else. There talk with Kyle was about fundraising.

    Other than it was after curfew for a 17 year old, and he was carrying a big gun and not to hunt.


    Kyle walked by the National Guard as he left the dealership.


    Which is why a 17 yo untrained boy should not have naively put himself in that position with a big gun.

    I think many things in this trial needs looked at. The judge's decision that the men killed could not be "victims" but could be called "looters" or "rioters" was interesting.
     
  15. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +7,653
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    That's your judgment on him.

    That's what I meant. The gun charge.

    And maybe they did tell the truth, and maybe those who came to help their business believed they meant something else, kind of like what happened above with my statement. You believe you said one thing and someone else believes you meant another thing. Happens all of the time. Also, there are local cultural differences in some places that when someone mentions something without asking, it can mean that they really are asking, but are being too polite to ask, and yet have the expectation as if they had asked, and the other of course knows this and agrees to help. So one could get up on a witness stand and claim truthfully that you did not ask for help. There are many other ways that communication can happen or not happen that does not make either of the parties into liars.

    Then charge him for breaking curfew if it was illegal, though considering that a whole bunch of other people around him were looting and burning down buildings and other acts of destruction, it would seem kind of silly to charge a teenager for the irredeemable offense of breaking a curfew. The prosecutors could not produce any evidence that a curfew had been in place, so that charge against him was also tossed out.

    It was, however, legal for him to be carrying that rifle. Whether or not you personally disagree with the law is irrelevant to the court case.

    Apparently they didn't seem to have a problem with him carrying the rifle.

    He hadn't been breaking any laws, unlike those who were burning down buildings and destroying property.

    All three of his "victims" were also convicted felons and yet no one questions why these "heroes" were in the area.

    And yet somehow a Democratic-appointed judge known for fair trials is somehow to blame because he's not allowing words to be used that could be seen as pre-judging the verdict.
     
  16. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +14,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    As you have a judgement as to what his behavior meant.


    Funny thing about that gun charge. Under Wisconsin law, anyone under 18 carrying a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdomeaner, except for hunting, military service or target practice. The exception was meant for hunting - not carrying around the street 'defending' property.
    Wisconsin needs to make a clearer law.

    I thought their testimony was clear.


    The prosecutor did a bad job of it. The judge was odd.

    I don't see any argument against my initial opinion that he was naive in carrying around big gun like that while by himself in a riot. It was stupid.
     
  17. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +7,653
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    It's called innocent until proven guilty.

    Kyle Rittenhouse: Are People under the age of 18 Forbidden from Open Carry in WI?

    I'm not talking about their testimony, but the actual conversation they had with those who believed they had asked for help.

    The prosecutor did a bad job of it because there was no case. It was clearly self-defense from the very beginning. The judge acted appropriately in not just going along with mob opinion.

    Because being unwise is not at all the same as being guilty of criminal charges of murder.
     
  18. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +14,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    But you made a judgement earlier that they were possibly lying under oath - "that is what they claimed. They could be lying."

    I didn't think he deserved the felony charge of intentional murder.

    But then I don't see him as a hero either. There was a fellow on TV tonight in Wisconsin who referred to him that way. Nope, he was naive, unwise teenager.
     
  19. bekkilyn

    bekkilyn Contemplative Christian Supporter

    +7,653
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    US-Others
    That wasn't judgment. I wasn't saying they *were* lying. (That would be judgment.) I was suggesting it as one out of many possibilities of how things could have been communicated. I also indicated that both parties could have told the truth and yet still comprehended the message differently.

    Well that was what the court case was about. Not about whether or not he should have been where he was. Not about whether he was wise or unwise. Not about whether Wisconsin's gun laws should be changed, etc.

    I also don't view him as a hero. However, I'm also not going to be overly-distraught that there are three fewer thugs off the streets.
     
  20. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +14,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    There were 5 charges, intentional murder was one. The judge allowed for lesser charges to be considered.

    I don't support those rioter, but I don't support vigilantism either.
     
Loading...