Social Virginia police officer fired for donating to Rittenhouse defense fund

[ElKarlo]

If you shoot a guy, then run away, and shoot the people trying to stop you, you just committed several murders and attempted murders. yes.

If you write things that are untrue, that makes you a liar. Thanks for the conversation. BTW you are either ignorant about this due to fapping to Don Lemon or you are just a random idiot who never looked at witness accounts and the videos. Anyhow, cya liar.

 

[Oddmonster]

If you write things that are untrue, that makes you a liar. Thanks for the conversation. BTW you are either ignorant about this due to fapping to Don Lemon or you are just a random idiot who never looked at witness accounts and the videos. Anyhow, cya liar.

Wait and see - He will be judged guilty, and then you will cry about how these mostly republican appointed judges are really libtards and it is the shadow governments fault. Republicans do get the gold medal in mental gymnastics and projection.

 

[ElKarlo]

Wait and see - He will be judged guilty, and then you will cry about how these mostly republican appointed judges are really libtards and it is the shadow governments fault. Republicans do get the gold medal in mental gymnastics and projection.

Yes, because intimidation and threats of rioting will have no bearing on how this goes down GTFO you are a twat.

 

[Oddmonster]

Yes, because intimidation and threats of rioting will have no bearing on how this goes down GTFO you are a twat.

Holy shit, you did not even wait till he was sentenced before you started crying and comming with excuses. True republican.

 

[BonesWinckleJones]

can i still donate?

 

[Hadron90]

He's not being censored to the best of my knowledge. At least I haven't seen an example. He's free to say what he wants in public or any private forum that will cary his message. That may come with some repercussions.

Again, I don't like this kind of thing. I don't like compelled speech or the supression of ideas.

However there are things I think but wouldn't publish. Conversely, Cornel West and Ben Shapiro seemingly say whatever they want. All of us say exactly those things we are willing to answer for.

Organizations have the freedom to associate with who they choose. You can't MAKE the NFL recruit Kapernick, you can't MAKE police departments keep cops the public doesn't trust, you can't make people do a damned thing unless it violates the commerce clause.

If this guy was a Nazi, or supporting Al Quaeda we wouldn't even be having this conversation, everyone would consider it obvious that hes not worthy of the public trust. You just don't like why the public doesn't trust him.

One day, decades from now, when you die poor, lonely, and depressed as a worker drone with no human rigbts in a corpofascist America, I want you to remember that you asked for it. I believe in the principles of free speech not because a lawyer encoded some specific version of them somewhere, but because I believe access to information, public debate, and the right to dissent are necessary for a successful Democracy. If you believe a corporations right to at-will employment is more fundamental, I think you will realize one day how mistaken you are.

 

[Hadron90]

Wait and see - He will be judged guilty, and then you will cry about how these mostly republican appointed judges are really libtards and it is the shadow governments fault. Republicans do get the gold medal in mental gymnastics and projection.

The left: America has a broken justice system!

Also the left: Anyone who disagrees with charges or sentencing should be fired!

 

[Hadron90]

"Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin."
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...le-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/

Politifact is posting their opinion. What determines if this kid is guilty or not will be a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers, and as part of that he is entitled to a competent legal defense. How can you so flippantly dismiss how important it is to protect the right of someone to side with the defendant and to help them get legal counsel?

 

[ElKarlo]

Holy shit, you did not even wait till he was sentenced before you started crying and comming with excuses. True republican.

Wow because nothing was done before or during the trial that would have alluded to that. You’re a straight up pillow marrying liar

 

[Hadron90]

When an officer of the law donate to a murderers defense fund, support the murderer and say he did nothing wrong, it could easily be a conflict of interest.

And? If for some reason that specific precinct in Virginia needed someone to work Kyle's case, they would just assign someone else. Are you really going to pretend like no police officer has ever said they believe someone is innocent before? They have never helped with a legal defense?

 

[badascan]

It's not cliche, it's Clown World... Except it isn't funny...

 

[Perturabo]

I don't have a problem with the cop anonymously donating to his defense fund so much as I do his public expression of telling him that he did nothing wrong. Rittenhouse did PLENTY wrong. Police should unanimously be condemning minors who arm themselves in an attempt to take on the the role of the law enforcement.

This kid did not grab dad's gun to defend his home or family...he travelled, flouted the law to obtain a gun, and engaged in a situation in which he had no mandate, training, or accountability...that is a huge problem and a public message of support from a cop sends a *terrible* message to others, IMHO.

I think it sends a good message. To me, the guy was a hero. And quit calling him kid. 17 year olds kill terrorists all the time in the military.

 

[MicroBrew]

That's up for debate. We covered the law on that point extensively in the main Rittenhouse thread. Because it was a non-NFA rifle, it appears him being over 16 allows for him to carry.

It isn't debatable. Under the current gun laws, he was not old enough to purchase the gun.

Charges have been filed against a 19-year-old man who prosecutors allege purchased and supplied the gun used by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse in the fatal shootings of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...gally-supplying-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-n1247307

--

He was not legally permitted to carry a firearm in Wisconsin. There is an exception but only for hunting.

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...osha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

 

[Confucamus]

When you pick up a weapon that is illegal for you to own, then go to what you yourself describe as a warzone - that is intent. He provoced the situation hoping for one result - to be able to shoot people he saw as his enemy.

There is no evidence of this and plenty of evidence against it. He most certainly did not provoke the situation. He put out a dumpster fire and was attacked. He made every effort to run away and only used his gun on people who were trying to kill him. He showed incredible restraint while surrounded. If he really was going there with the intent to kill people, why would he constantly be running away from danger? Why would he be running to the police? Why would he have been helping out people who were injured?

 

[Oddmonster]

There is no evidence of this and plenty of evidence against it. He most certainly did not provoke the situation. He put out a dumpster fire and was attacked. He made every effort to run away and only used his gun on people who were trying to kill him. He showed incredible restraint while surrounded. If he really was going there with the intent to kill people, why would he constantly be running away from danger? Why would he be running to the police? Why would he have been helping out people who were injured?

He was running because he just shot someone, as he is recorded telling someone on his phone. People try to stop him from fleeing, and he murders them.
edit: and pretty funny that you claim that the people trying to stop him was trying to kill him, while he himlsef is an innocent helper of the injured who just happened to shoot people he hated.

 

[Confucamus]

Eh, you started out like you were trying to have a genuine conversation about this and then you kind of came unravelled making it about Republicans and shit. But I'll bite...

He was running because he just shot someone, as he is recorded telling someone on his phone.

Are you ignoring the first clip where he was being chased by a crowd and fired on?

People try to stop him from fleeing, and he murders them.

He was "fleeing" by running directly to where the police were. He even told Krossgreutz this, who then preceded to tell others around him to get Rittenhouse. They were trying to get to him before he could get to the police.

edit: and pretty funny that you claim that the people trying to stop him was trying to kill him, while he himlsef is an innocent helper of the injured who just happened to shoot people he hated.

I mean, Krossgruetz literally had a gun pointed to the back of Rittenhouse's head. He was going to execute him.

 

[panamaican]

Do you believe officers should be fired for donating to political candidates?
Should officers be fired for donating to any legal defense, or just Rittenhouse's?

I don't think they should be fired for donating to political candidates.

I think that donating to a legal defense and publicly stating that the individual did nothing wrong warrants some form of punishment. And, yes, that would be for any legal defense. It's not the contribution that's punishable, it's the assertion that nothing wrong happened even though there's a trial forthcoming.

Contributing to a legal defense won't get anyone in trouble. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and that includes hiring an attorney to represent you. If someone wants to help pay for those costs to ensure that a defendant gets a fair trial, that's fine.

 

[Hadron90]

I don't think they should be fired for donating to political candidates.

I think that donating to a legal defense and publicly stating that the individual did nothing wrong warrants some form of punishment. And, yes, that would be for any legal defense. It's not the contribution that's punishable, it's the assertion that nothing wrong happened even though there's a trial forthcoming.

Where did this standard come from? Should cops be barred from weighing on anything before the trial? I saw a lot of cops get semi-famous for saying Chauvin murdered Floyd well before that trial was over. Should they be fired for pre-judging the case?

 

[panamaican]

Where did this standard come from? Should cops be barred from weighing on anything before the trial? I saw a lot of cops get semi-famous for saying Chauvin murdered Floyd well before that trial was over. Should they be fired for pre-judging the case?

Depends on the department. But for the active officers that you see on tv, I'm going to assume that they ran it past their departments before they hopped on tv and laid out their opinion. If they didn't then they should be punished.

 

[jx820]

I believe in the principles of free speech not because a lawyer encoded some specific version of them somewhere, but because I believe access to information, public debate, and the right to dissent are necessary for a successful Democracy.

Me too. I just acknowledge we still have that. Short of a threat, conspiring, or incitement, you can say whatever you want to whomever you want about whatever you want.

I'd also argue that general rejection of one's ideas are a part of that public debate.

If you believe a corporations right to at-will employment is more fundamental, I think you will realize one day how mistaken you are.

Free speech is the the first and foremost of our rights. The freedom of association is of nearly equal importance. Someone not wanting to associate with you does not take away your freedom of speech. I know you want that to be the case, but it's not.

The basic agreement of a free society is that you can choose to be as confrontational, rude, justified, proud, passoinate, loud, vulgar, boorish, wrong, right, etc... as you want and the state can't arrest you, fine you, or curtail your freedoms. Other free people (and "corporate persons") can choose to not date, marry, buy from, employ, work with, sell to, join a club with you. That's not oppression. That's not corpofascism. Any libertarian would agree with that.

The possible exception being in some instances that interfere with interstate commerce under the commerce clause (e.g. Katzenback vs. McClung).