@farmerguy56 right. So anyone burning down Kenosha will be afraid for their life if someone tries to stop them. So in self-defense they can kill that person. Perfectly legal. You will defend the arsonists, to be consistent, yes?

@JacksonNought Are you saying arsonists should be allowed to destroy the livelihood and property of others with impunity? There is no right to defend person and property?

@FrankZeleniuk I'm not saying that, the courts just did. Whether the original shooting was justified or not, Rittenhouse was seen by bystanders as having committed a crime, and they tried to stop what was perceived as an active shooter. Rittenhouse fled, and apparently feared for his life that people were trying to stop him from getting away with a crime.

So if that's the case, if an arsonist fears for his life when someone tries to stop them, they can legally murder the people. That's what was just decided. Not my position, but position of the Wisconsin Court.

@farmerguy56 actually as a Satanist, one of the core tenets is to not harm animals. You'll actually find those among the Abrahamic religions are the ones who conduct sacrifices.

If an arsonist is trying to kill someone in their act, then sure defend yourself. But if someone like Rittenhouse is attempting to stop them, they can fear for their life and murder them. Sure, prosecute them for the original crime of arson, but they are innocent of murder.

The lunatic left has been rioting, burning, raping, and murdering unhindered till now. Do you wander about with your eyes and ears closed? The trial found self-defense. It means if you attempt to rape and pillage and threaten violence to get your way, those threatened have the right to defend themselves.

@farmerguy56 Rittenhouse crossed state lines to inject himself into a situation he had no part of. He was protecting property without permission - the owner said he did not ask him to do so. When the police mandated a curfew and pushed back the crowd, Rittenhouse disobeyed police orders. He obtained the gun illegally, threw a straw purchase. He is also seen on video assaulting a woman weeks before, as well as commenting on a shoplifter that he wished he had his gun so he could execute him. Those are all facts.

Rittenhouse's victim who had a gun - if he had shot and killed Rittenhouse, that would have been in self-defense right? You'd be defending him?

@adriaan23 and yet I'm sure you cry about Ashli Babbitt.

@JacksonNought Have you ever read the five rules of stupidity. The man with the gun "The criminal" Who advanced toward the accused. Gun pointing at the accused. You must mean the gun Rittenhouse legally had in his possession. You keep getting the facts wrong. Have you ever considered you might be a wanker?

@JacksonNought The arsonist is in the process of committing a crime of destroying another's property. Arson in law is a criminal act and the arsonist is initiating the criminal act of arson. That is a crime and is defensible. If the arsonist wishes to defend himself by shooting the victim of his criminal act he will most likely be charged with both arson and injury to another. If the victim dies in the fire he will be charged with arson and murder. If he dies defending himself and his property. The arsonist will be indicted for arson and murder. If the victim kills the criminal arsonist. He may be indicted and face trial if there is any question it is not self-defense. It could be there is no question of the fact it is self-defense it may not proceed to trial.

You are lucky you have the right of self-defense. Anyone who attempts to burn down your house should be charged with a crime. The big problem is that no one in the riots, mislabeled by the media as, "mostly peaceful protests", was charged with arson or looting and pillaging. Statutory crimes. Most, if not all, were bailed out by Democrat politicians and sanctimonious Hollywood actors.

And it wasn't vigilanteism either. Vigilante's go on the hunt for suspected criminals and may or may not give them due process. Rittenhouse was not looking for suspected arsonists. he was simply trying to prevent further destruction to property.

Stay safe.

@adriaan23 "You must mean the gun Rittenhouse legally had in his possession"

It was actually illegal for him to have it.

@farmerguy56 and you are probably a Christian pedophile. So why bother engaging with you?

@FrankZeleniuk Rittenhouse was on video earlier espousing urges to be a vigilante. He wasn't asked to be there to protect property. He came as part of a far right militia.

And the group only saw a person flee after just shooting someone. They were acting in self defense as well. So if Rittenhouse was shot and killed it would have been justified.

@JacksonNought Well, it's all over now.

Just looking at the march across the Brooklyn Bridge right now. Look how peaceful they are. Now that's a peaceful protest.

You are only interested in the destruction of America and I expect you to argue for that. Any means to the end.

There may be some rioting yet and everyone is a white supremacist or vigilante. They're everywhere! They're everywhere! So stay safe.

@FrankZeleniuk I'd say the Conservatives and Republicans, and most definitely the crazy Trump supporters and Q terrorists, are the ones trying to destroy America. Myself and the political ideologues I relate to want America to flourish and all its citizens to prosper and be happy, healthy, and free. The Conservatives are the ones who want to rip up the Constitution and enforce Christian theocracy, treat women as chattel, imprison gay people, murder immigrants, and let all non-millionaires die in the streets.

@JacksonNought Well...luckily for you the southern border is wide open and you can still escape.

@FrankZeleniuk nah, you see, people like me are patriots who are able to acknowledge the country's dirty laundry and work towards a better tomorrow, actually fulfilling the idea of the Constitution with freedom and the power of the people. We aren't blind loyalists who spit in the face of the Constitution and want to destroy anyone who doesn't make the flag their whole identity. We are working on making the country better every day, and are making great strides - the civil rights movement, suffrage, marriage equality, teaching evolution in schools, etc. Why would I want to leave? We got rid of one of the worst, most corrupt presidents in history - why leave during an upswing?

I could just as easily ask why Conservatives aren't leaving? They can move to Russia where they can worship a corrupt autocrat who makes it illegal for same sex partners to hold hands in public. Where the news is quite literally Conservative propaganda. Sounds like a Conservative utopia. I thought you guys didn't think America was great? After all, what was MAGA about?

Also, didn't a Trump loving insurrectionist just illegally travel to Belarus to avoid prosecution?

@JacksonNought Hmmm...very perplexing!!

What is happening in America seems to be happening in all western nations. Have you been getting help from those nations for America to achieve freedom and fulfill the idea of the Constitution? Do those nations wish to adopt the founding principles of the American Constitution as well? Just wondering, because all western democratic nations, America included, seem to be heading in the same direction. Have you noticed that or is it unimportant?? Did those nations help you "get rid of" one of the "worst and most corrupt"Presidents in history?

Conservatives aren't leaving because they like America the way it was, you know, like what conservatism is all about. There is no doubt the country had a greater impact on the rest of the world than they currently do. People in other nations envied the freedoms Americans had. They didn't, and likely still don't realize the price Americans paid for those freedoms. Americans, for instance, have no national system of universal healthcare. They are inching towards it, mind you. Why have they so staunchly resisted it when every developed nation on the planet has adopted some form of universal healthcare? Basically, because it isn't healthcare. It is health insurance. The insurer is the one that makes healthcare decisions based upon costs mostly, and some of the freedom to make healthcare decisions are now lost to the individual. A national or federal system of healthcare as opposed to a private insurance system is even worse because the government and not insurance companies then make the healthcare decisions or individuals. Initially, socialized health insurance is not that costly but as healthcare practitioners climb on board, it gets more costly, and soon it is prohibitively costly. Other developed nations just skipped the private insurance phase and went straight to public insurance. Private insurance is still available in just about all of those nations. Canada is an exception. All our supplemental insurance is about our status as a patient. We can supplement our status by upgrading to a private hospital room as opposed to a shared room, for instance.

Or take education. There is a reason that public education was not a federal mandate until the creation of the Department of Education under the Carter Administration. Once again it is about freedom. The DOE is supposed to be only an economic resource to the States. It isn't supposed to run the education system nationally but it is starting to take over through economic incentives and disincentives. Once again, every developed nation has a national public education system and once again parent involvement in national curricula standards erodes decade after decade. A national standard is being set in America now. The standard being foisted upon the nation at the moment is met with concerned opposition by parents who are immediately labelled terrorists. It's tyranny really.

Do you think that holding people in solitary confinement without charges is fair? What do you suppose would be the treatment of Evan Neumann had he been arrested? Would it be the same as Chewbacca guy? Or would there be some other standard like that of 2020 rioters - excuse me, "peaceful protestors" bailed out of jails by Democrat politicians and Hollywood sympathizers? Is that what you would call an improvement or "upswing"?

Really, I sympathize with you. You can't trust even your closest friends to remain on the course you have all embarked upon. I don't suppose you want pity because you don't perceive yourself to be in need of sympathy. The radical change you want in American society will require a lot of force. Change should and would occur as long as it can be reasoned. If change is forced without reason it will meet heavy resistance, so much so that gains already won may be lost. We are talking about society here and what is needed to sustain it. The changes you are asking for will not sustain it. You are asking for a different, new society. The help you are getting now comes from a society that will entirely exclude many "different" people that do not fit the mold should it ever be realized. It is a different society but not a new society. It has been tried many, many times in the past and crumbled many times.

America is not perfect, but your best chance for any kind of happiness is as it exists now not how you dream you can remake it. I'm sorry but it does appear to me you are very bitter toward current American culture and the society as a whole. Your government has given labels to different factions in your society and offered them some temporary power, mostly to act criminally as a mob - under their leadership, of course, with impunity. The apple cart has been upset in all western societies not just yours; in case you think you have an exclusively American problem. Is it going to be the labelled victims in western society that are going to reshape the world or even have a say in it? I am so,so sorry you have been led to believe that. It is not those with victim status or even the middle class, who will be the ultimate victims, that will be setting the standards. The standards will be set to eliminate any opposition to those that will be setting the standards. The ones with power to hide their true intentions and agenda.

Stay safe.