Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Darththeo]

For all those who defended the stupid dead pedophile Joseph Rosenbaum, it's time to take a good look in the mirror. Sentencing information reveals he sexually raped 5 boys between the ages of 9 and 11.

-snip-

Disgusting. And some of you even had the gall to run defence for this scum of the earth. This stupid dead pedophile deserved to die, and it just so happened that Rittenhouse had a bullet with his name on it, when the "shoot me n-word" pedophile charged at him.

Reflect on that. You defended a pedophile!

It is irrelevant what Rosebaum did in the past. It does not matter to the situation at hand. It doesn't matter if he raped 100 little boys and wore their skin ... his wrongs that he did in the past DO NOT JUSTIFY Rittenhouse's actions during that night. You may find it disgusting, but that is how the legal system works. We aren't "Defending a pedophile" we are upholding the law.

The only thing that matters is the events that happen the night Rosebaum was shot by Rittenhouse ... that's it.

[Felya]

Well, since the past of the guy is not relevant, neither is the one of Rittenhouse since I saw people saying he is prone to violence since he assaulted a girl or something.

No, because you are not accusing the guy of trying to molest Rittenhouse... the above just means you don’t understand relevant and irrelevant information. Violent tendencies of a murderer mater, where the past crimes of someone killed without any relation to that crime, has no relevance what so ever.

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing that matters is the events that happen the night Rosebaum was shot by Rittenhouse ... that's it.

Indeed... they are willing to toss victims of other crimes under the bus, to defend him. Because this is how little that maters, in light of defending a murderer.

[josykay]

For all those who defended the stupid dead pedophile Joseph Rosenbaum, it's time to take a good look

Disgusting. And some of you even had the gall to run defence for this scum of the earth. This stupid dead pedophile deserved to die, and it just so happened that Rittenhouse had a bullet with his name on it, when the "shoot me n-word" pedophile charged at him.

Reflect on that. You defended a pedophile!

That is not how the rule of law works. None of this is related to Rittenhouse shooting people, and is just used to retroactivly trying to justify murder.

Legally it DOES NOT MATTER.

[Felya]

That is not how the rule of law works. None of this is related to Rittenhouse shooting people, and is just used to retroactivly trying to justify murder.

Legally it DOES NOT MATTER.

They are literally posting explicit sexual content on a gaming forum, to chastise a victim of murder. They have no scruples...

Edit: Stop quoting that image... I just reported it to mods as “Explicit sexual content, describing pedophelia.”

[Specialka]

No, because you are not accusing the guy of trying to molest Rittenhouse... the above just means you don’t understand relevant and irrelevant information. Violent tendencies of a murderer mater, where the past crimes of someone killed without any relation to that crime, has no relevance what so ever.

- - - Updated - - -



Indeed... they are willing to toss victims of other crimes under the bus, to defend him. Because this is how little that maters, in light of defending a murderer.

You do know that his attorney will use that past in his defense of Rittenhouse since Rosenbaum, like it or not, was a violent man (raped children). You do realize it, right ? As most probably the DA will use the twitter video where he hit a girl + any evidence to say that Rittenhouse is prone to violence as well.

[Felya]

You do know that his attorney will use that past in his defense of Rittenhouse since Rosenbaum, like it or not, was a violent man (raped children). You do realize it, right ? As most probably the DA will use the twitter video where he hit a girl + any evidence to say that Rittenhouse is prone to violence as well.

No, he can’t... the judge would intervene... it has no relevance to the case. Bringing up shit like has no relevance in such a case. Trying to pull shit like this, is why judges moderate in court.

[Specialka]

No, he can’t... the judge would intervene... it has no relevance to the case. Bringing up shit like has no relevance in such a case. Trying to pull shit like this, is why judges moderate in court.

So it would seem he will most probably do the same for the other side of the case.

[DingDongKing]

That is not how the rule of law works. None of this is related to Rittenhouse shooting people, and is just used to retroactivly trying to justify murder.

Legally it DOES NOT MATTER.

They have no defence of his actions, so they're pearl clutching. If these people were so concerned about sexual abuse whether of minors or adults, people like Jim Jordan, Donald Trump and all his cronies wouldn't be in charge today. But hey, those sex offenders serve their agenda, so it's okay.

[josykay]

They are literally posting explicit sexual content on a gaming forum, to chastise a victim of murder. They have no scruples...

Edit: Stop quoting that image... I just reported it to mods as “Explicit sexual content, describing pedophelia.”

Fair enough. I have edited it out.

[JohnBrown1917]

For all those who defended the stupid dead pedophile Joseph Rosenbaum, it's time to take a good look in the mirror. Sentencing information reveals he sexually raped 5 boys between the ages of 9 and 11.

[IMG]https://media.thedonald.win/post/oQ1PLOx4.jpeg[IMG]

Disgusting. And some of you even had the gall to run defence for this scum of the earth. This stupid dead pedophile deserved to die, and it just so happened that Rittenhouse had a bullet with his name on it, when the "shoot me n-word" pedophile charged at him.

Reflect on that. You defended a pedophile!

So if past actions now justify murder, when you don't even know they did them, I take it that Trumper getting killed was also fair game now?

[Bodakane]

I have some issue with that part: "He went out there looking to shoot people". Sorry but nope, he was there to help as he is saying it while being interviewed by the Daily Caller reporter. The gun is there for defense.

And as far as I am aware, you can carry a gun in, at least some states, and it is not offensive or an agressive stance.

And I go agree that gun laws in the US are stupid.

He said we was there to get in harms way.

[Felya]

So it would seem he will most probably do the same for the other side of the case.

What same? What are you talking about? What are you trying to say is the same?

[Specialka]

He said we was there to get in harms way.

That is new to me, do you have any video/evidence/interview of that ?

[Felya]

That is new to me, do you have any video/evidence/interview of that ?

Why did he need a gun again?

[Specialka]

Why did he need a gun again?

I thought having a gun and openly carrying it in the USA was not seen as being agressive (by the law I mean).

[SirBeef]

Which evidence is proving that he went there to shoot people ?

Well, since the past of the guy is not relevant, neither is the one of Rittenhouse since I saw people saying he is prone to violence since he assaulted a girl or something.

Being prone to violence is totally relevant to a person who decided on his own to cross state lines with a firearm he was not legally allowed to carry to "protect" stuff, in a state he does not live in. His behaviour there, pointed out by witnesses, shows he was there to shoot people. Why bring a gun, an assault rifle, a weapon of war, if not intending to shoot other's? So his tendency to be prone to violence is relevant.

As for Rosenbaum, what he did was sick and he should have been in prison for life. That does not justify his death, nor excuse Rittenhouse of accountability. He went, armed, I to a place of conflict willingly. There is no claim of self defense to be made.

[Felya]

I thought having a gun and openly carrying it in the USA was not seen as being agressive (by the law I mean).

That’s not an answer...

[SirBeef]

I thought having a gun and openly carrying it in the USA was not seen as being agressive (by the law I mean).

Not by the law, but it is clearly aggressive.

[Specialka]

Being prone to violence is totally relevant to a person who decided on his own to cross state lines with a firearm he was not legally allowed to carry to "protect" stuff, in a state he does not live in. His behaviour there, pointed out by witnesses, shows he was there to shoot people. Why bring a gun, an assault rifle, a weapon of war, if not intending to shoot other's? So his tendency to be prone to violence is relevant.

As for Rosenbaum, what he did was sick and he should have been in prison for life. That does not justify his death, nor excuse Rittenhouse of accountability. He went, armed, I to a place of conflict willingly. There is no claim of self defense to be made.

It seems the gun was already in the Wisconsin.

As for witness of his agressive behavior, it seems it is only 3 people (and one is dead). Seems not a lot for a street with a lot of people.

And it also seems we are not talking about the same thing. I, too, find the US law regarding guns completely stupid and they should be scrapped and strict gun law should be put in place. But as it stands, it is not the case, and it seems that displaying a gun is not an agressive stance.

[Felya]

As for Rosenbaum, what he did was sick and he should have been in prison for life. That does not justify his death, nor excuse Rittenhouse of accountability. He went, armed, I to a place of conflict willingly. There is no claim of self defense to be made.

I guess unlike The Donald forums, posting explicit sexual content involving children, just to prove your point is fucked up... even if it was relevant... which it isn’t... making it pretty damn sick thing to do.