Kyle Rittenhouse video and audio analysis clearly shows...

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
~ Oscar Wilde ​

 

Violent leftest?

 

I was going to stop posting in this thread, but that comment about "violent leftests" has been bugging me.

Too bad mcme left as I would really have liked him to explain that remark and also answer all of the questions I put to him about the trial. But he long ago chose to ignore most of the points I made.

Anyway, I was watching the dreaded "media" this morning and noted a few relationships between this latest school shooting and the Rittenhouse case.
So, I will make a prediction. If the same judge presides over the trial of Ethan Crumbley for the shooting and death of four students and the wounding of others, he will go free. He will be found innocent on all accounts. (Based on what I know at this time)

Here's why,
First of all that crazy lying liberal media is calling the dead and wounded "victims"! The judge would never allow that as Ethan is innocent so far. As pure as driven snow.
Second, he was bullied. Clearly that is aggressiveness on the part of certain individuals (we don't know who yet) and perhaps the entire student body...and possibly teachers and administrators. Being bullied he felt threatened, in his own mind, and that's all that matters, what he felt. He had a right to defend himself from violent, probably leftests, as we all know leftests like to attend schools.
Third, if it is found that any verbal threats were made to the well being of Crumbley, or a group of other students he was hanging around with, say threats to stuff them into a locker, punch them in the nose, tie their shoe laces together, or if someone had said, "I'll kill you all", and then ran laughing down the hall; he would be perfectly within his rights to shoot anyone who made those remarks.
Fourth, if it is found that any of the dead or wounded had advanced on Crumbley, that is moved in his direction, as he is not required to retreat but can "stand his ground", he would be perfectly within his rights to shoot them.
Fifth, if it is found that any of the dead or wounded tried to take Crumbley's gun either when he first produced it, or after the first shot was fired, he would be perfectly within his rights to shoot them. Remember they could use his own gun agaisnt him! He would be in danger.
Sixth, the video of him saying he is going to shoot some students the next day would be declared inadmissible, as in the case of the Rittenhouse video where he says he would like to shoot some looters with his AR 15.
Seventh, although the dead and wounded will not be allowed to be called victims it will be permissible to search into their past and portray them as bullies. And we may find some have had traffic tickets, skipped a few classes, had unwanted pregnancies, cheated on a test, or played violent video games.
Eighth, the judge would find he was hunting and so needed the gun.
Nineth, if it is found that anyone threw a plastic bag of gym clothes, a pencil, tablet or perhaps a copy of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life at him; well need I say more? They would clearly be a violent liberal.

The defense rest its case.

 

Oh, I thought you left.
Good to see you back.
First let me address this:

Are you are saying that vigilantes can take the law into their own hands, decide who are and who are not rioting, burning, and looting, and attacking violently, even though they must be granted the Constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty as you loudly proclaimed in the Rittnehouse case; and then execute them? And it seems only liberals? Do we have to ask first if they are liberals or can we just assume they are, and are conservatives also open to the same actions? Can we shoot them if we believe they are violent, etc.? Do you assume liberals are bad? It seems so.

Now onto the latest shooting of persons who aren't yet victims until the jury speaks.
I spent over 35 years teaching in various public educational settings, so don't accuse me of not being sympathetic to these kids. I feel for all involved including the shooter.
That doesn't mean I can't use this shooting as an example of some of the absurdities in our court system in relation to certain trials.

I'm still researching this latest shooting so I'll update or correct anything I say at this point later on.
I do see the mother blamed the Common Core curriculum in the past for her son's behavior.

Sounds like a good defense there. That darn liberal Common Core is to blame!
Aiden Page, a student, said that in his classroom,

That would have been a mistake because then the shooter could have claimed self defense.
Tate Myre was killed while trying to disarm the shooter, so no murder there. Tate was clearly trying to get Crumbley's gun. I mean he rushed him!

I could be wrong about being bullied, we'll see what the motive is but if it turns out that he believed he might be in some sort of danger or he thought he was being bullied, then he should be found innocent according to the standard set by the Rittnehouse case. I can't find anything that says he wasn't bullied, as you claim, and I thought I heard a report that he thought he was...we'll see.

Anyway, if I was on the Defensive team I'd use all of the tricks used in the Rittenhouse case. Worked there.

 

It's good to be wary.
You do believe there is no room for vigilantes, good, I don't know what with due process means, but I assume (please forgive my assumption and correct me if I'm wrong) that you mean there is no room for vigilantes in a society that has due process within its legal system.
Now I looked up the definition of vigilante in Merriam Webster.

As Rittenhouse stated he went, with others, armed, to the riot/protest in order to protect, or suppress, crime at a car dealership. That seems to fit the definition to me. The owners of the dealership denied asking him to do so by the way.
So what you're telling me is that Rittenhouse's excuse for bringing the gun as a private citizen to suppress damage to the car dealership wasn't vigilantism? Please explain what vigilantism is in your view.

Now on to my career as an educator. I apologize if this is a might long, but you have questioned my integrity so I feel an explanation is proper.
I admit to indoctrinating students if we use the secondary definition of indoctrination as found in Merriam Webster:

and I would even agree to sometimes indoctrinating as per the primary definition: :

For example in the first case, the secondary definition, I instructed or taught (indoctrination) the fundamentals of photography, graphic arts, woodworking, drafting, robotics, various printing processes, various computer programs, etc. as all that was part of the curriculum.
In the second case, the primary definition, I occasionally expressed a partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle (indoctrination) about which computer system was superior to another (I always thought the Amiga was vastly superior to the Apple computers), whether formal or informal balance in my opinion would be better in a certain graphic layout, etc. as all that was part of the curriculum.
But I never talked politics, values, morals, religion, etc. in class with students as that was not part of the curriculum.

You see public school teachers have limited free speech rights. If I were to express my opinion on political or religious matters and those matters were not included in the curriculum, I would be in deep trouble.

As my area of instruction was Industrial Arts, or Technology Education, or as it ended up STEM, I never deviated from the curriculum and no curriculum that guided my teaching in over 35 years included anything about politics or religion.

And I never failed anyone for what they thought, as I can't read minds anyway.

 

License to kill.​