Kyle Rittenhouse says he will sue Whoopi Goldberg
I think a lot of people try to protect themselves with group-think and gangs, but in reality, in the event they would be alone and defenseless, they would want at the very least a pistol to defend themselves with, they would need that gun. To save their sorry lives!
People who have a dissenting opinion from the majority wouldn't even express it to begin with and they would keep their thoughts to themselves unless they are in a group where lot of people have the same opinion as them, (human nature) not lie about their beliefs. I'm talking about online of course. In real life it's harder to do.
Skunks, on the other hand, are more than happy to be individualistic and voice that individuality amongst a group that has a collectivist mindset.
They are actually encouraged to do so.
Viva la skunks!
Viva la individuality!
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Kyle killed 2 in self-defense.
Thank you for getting your facts right.
Idk I guess to some extent I findd the self defense charge flawed, I mean the more I see of the case I can see that added to the defense, I just think he shot inappropriately just not so sure he needed to use lethal force. I for sure after seeing some more facts figured maybe he did feel in danger so it was partially self defense, but I feel he still acted recklessly and should have at least gotten manslaughter charges even if it was ruled not to be murder.
I mean I think kyle rittenhouse seems to be someone who got mixed up into things that are way above his head, so I'd even say I feel a bit bad for him....but I just don't think it was nessisary for him to kill people and am disappointed he faces no consequences. I don't think he should be locked up forever but he should have gotten some consequence.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
The influence of Christian philosophy has a hell of a lot to do with it, obviously.
But I was raised Christian and in Christianity, they teach you that shooting back in self defense is okay, and I was never tought to take a beating, especially if armed men charge at you.
The influence of Christian philosophy has a hell of a lot to do with it, obviously.
But I was raised Christian and in Christianity, they teach you that shooting back in self defense is okay, and I was never tought to take a beating, especially if armed men charge at you.
I am saying they used to teach "turn the other cheek".
It was a Christian concept.
I am much older than you.
Perhaps things changed since I was a kid, but it has influenced society none-the-less.
They taught us that but not in life and death danger scenarios though. But how are do Christians take this turn the other cheek concept? I bett if Kyle Rittenhouse was a woman for example, so many more people would be on board with her shooting to stop her attakcers' charge by comparison.
Well, the kid had better get used to his reputation being what it is now, because the consequences of his actions on that fateful evening are something he is going to have to deal with for the rest of his life. Much like George Zimmerman before him, some people will continue to accept him, defend him, and may even think of him as a hero. However, others will regard him as a murderer, no matter what the courts say. Opinions will likely be divided fairly closely to political lines. Being a controversial figure is something that is going to follow him when he applies for jobs, when he travels, or even when he ventures out into public. Apparently he's from a blue state, so...ouch.
Christianity is almost dead in the United Kingdom currently, at least, as a practiced culture.
I was raised in Christian schools' during the 1990's & early 2000's. Looking around at selfish money grifters everywhere, I feel as though I am better off for it.
Not caring about money or a projected image is very liberating.
_________________
“I was ashamed of myself when I realized life was a costume party and I attended with my real face” - Franz Kafka
I see him as more of a person who just had to protect himself from being attacked in unfortunate circumstances, but neither a hero or a murderer, but that is just my opinion. What I don't understand about American politics is how the democrats seem to think of him as a murderer, and the republicans think of him as a hero it seems.
If the democrats have a pro-pacifism attitude when it comes to being attacked, does this meant that if a war broke out between democrats and republicans breaks out, as some predict it will, that the democrats will not fight back if attacked likely therefore, if they believe in pacifism?
Well let's see
1. Nicholas Sandmann tried to sue the Washington Post (settled out of court)
2. Sarah Palin tried to sue the NY post (thrown out)
3. George Zimmerman tried to sue the parents of his shooting victim (thrown out of court)
and now we have
4. Rittenhouse suing Whoopi Goldberg and having other celebrities in his "gun sights" (no pun intended)
Right wingers certainly trying their luck. I assume Rittenhouse received legal advice that high profile commentary calling him a murderer after he was exonerated in the courts is slander.
I assume Whoopi must be feeling like this after anti-semitic comments....
I see him as more of a person who just had to protect himself from being attacked in unfortunate circumstances, but neither a hero or a murderer, but that is just my opinion. What I don't understand about American politics is how the democrats seem to think of him as a murderer, and the republicans think of him as a hero it seems.
If the democrats have a pro-pacifism attitude when it comes to being attacked, does this meant that if a war broke out between democrats and republicans breaks out, as some predict it will, that the democrats will not fight back if attacked likely therefore, if they believe in pacifism?
I refuse to entertain the notion of a US civil war period, because it would be one of the dumbest wars in the history of wars. Besides, there's already a conflict going on in the Ukraine right now, so it would be beyond moronic for the US to start one with itself anytime soon.
I see him as more of a person who just had to protect himself from being attacked in unfortunate circumstances, but neither a hero or a murderer, but that is just my opinion. What I don't understand about American politics is how the democrats seem to think of him as a murderer, and the republicans think of him as a hero it seems.
If the democrats have a pro-pacifism attitude when it comes to being attacked, does this meant that if a war broke out between democrats and republicans breaks out, as some predict it will, that the democrats will not fight back if attacked likely therefore, if they believe in pacifism?
I refuse to entertain the notion of a US civil war period, because it would be one of the dumbest wars in the history of wars. Besides, there's already a conflict going on in the Ukraine right now, so it would be beyond moronic for the US to start one with itself anytime soon.
Oh okay, thanks for your input on it. I was also wondering, a lot of people do not like that he was brandishing a gun, however in my research, it seems that in Wisconsin, it's okay to carry a gun if it's open carry (and it's a legal fire arm of course), but concealed carry is illegal. But a lot of people do not like the idea of brandishing a gun though as in this case.
So I am wondering, would people be more happy if the laws were changed, and open carry is illegal, and concealed carry is legal instead, since people have responded really harshly to open carry, such as in this case? But if the public hates the idea of open carry, why did the government make this legal, compared to concealed carry?
1. Nicholas Sandmann tried to sue the Washington Post (settled out of court)
2. Sarah Palin tried to sue the NY post (thrown out)
3. George Zimmerman tried to sue the parents of his shooting victim (thrown out of court)
and now we have
4. Rittenhouse suing Whoopi Goldberg and having other celebrities in his "gun sights" (no pun intended)
Right wingers certainly trying their luck. I assume Rittenhouse received legal advice that high profile commentary calling him a murderer after he was exonerated in the courts is slander.
I assume Whoopi must be feeling like this after anti-semitic comments....
I don't know what will happen except, damn, will your face be red if Rittenhouse gets money out of people slandering him.
Time will tell.
1. Nicholas Sandmann tried to sue the Washington Post (settled out of court)
2. Sarah Palin tried to sue the NY post (thrown out)
3. George Zimmerman tried to sue the parents of his shooting victim (thrown out of court)
and now we have
4. Rittenhouse suing Whoopi Goldberg and having other celebrities in his "gun sights" (no pun intended)
Right wingers certainly trying their luck. I assume Rittenhouse received legal advice that high profile commentary calling him a murderer after he was exonerated in the courts is slander.
I assume Whoopi must be feeling like this after anti-semitic comments....
I don't know what will happen except, damn, will your face be red if Rittenhouse gets money out of people slandering him.
Time will tell.
Actually he has a reasonable case, he was called a murderer after he was freed which he claims is slander. But this will be a test of free speech again I guess.
1. Nicholas Sandmann tried to sue the Washington Post (settled out of court)
2. Sarah Palin tried to sue the NY post (thrown out)
3. George Zimmerman tried to sue the parents of his shooting victim (thrown out of court)
and now we have
4. Rittenhouse suing Whoopi Goldberg and having other celebrities in his "gun sights" (no pun intended)
Right wingers certainly trying their luck. I assume Rittenhouse received legal advice that high profile commentary calling him a murderer after he was exonerated in the courts is slander.
I assume Whoopi must be feeling like this after anti-semitic comments....
I don't know what will happen except, damn, will your face be red if Rittenhouse gets money out of people slandering him.
Time will tell.
Actually he has a reasonable case, he was called a murderer after he was freed which he claims is slander. But this will be a test of free speech again I guess.
People are always free to slander others.
They just have to pay the price when they do.
