[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226916]
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
The January 6th insurrectionists including Ashley Babbitt thought they had the right to destroy federal property and attack the government
Kyle Rittenhouse thought he had the right to enforce the law.
There you go mind reading again. Eh, probably making stuff up about what was in their minds rather than actually reading their minds. Or maybe just conjecturing, assuming, etc. . . . the regular stuff you do. Is there evidence that Babbit destroyed any property. There is video of her trying to stop someone from breaking out the glass window which she afterwards tried to go through when she was shot and killed.
And where is there evidence that Rittenhouse "enforced" the law.
He didn't commit any crime. He defended himself. Is that a from of "enforcing" the law?
Why was there only minimal police presence on January 6th?
Because Ashley Babbit was "powerful"?
Do you think if Kyle Rittenhouse was black he would have walked away armed from an active crime scene
Are you insinuating that blacks have never done so?
There were several armed people there witnessing the crime scene who walked away from it. Rittenhouse defended himself, which you seem to prefer that he had been unsuccessful in doing so. You keep trying to frame the event as he being the guilty purpetrator, and everyone else being the innocent victims. The results of the trial showed that you have it backwards.
Millions of people protested for BLM without incident
Uhh . . . OK. Didn't know that anyone was saying that that's not true.
Nothing within the law gives police the right to summarily execute anyone
Uhh . . . OK. Is there some disagreement about that here to which you are referring. George Floyd was not "summarily executed." He was killed while resisting arrest. The police officer was convicted and sentenced to jail.
Your narrative is far from true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Another one of your just say so stuff. What narrative and what was false about it?
Threaded Mode