General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

L.W. Paradis
The Jimmy Dore Show
comments

Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Documentarian Censored For Hate Speech Despite Making Film Against It." video.

Nunya Bidness This is a correct analysis. A person cannot create the conditions that require self-defense and then claim self-defense. It does not work that way. Rittenhouse was in a place where he had no business being, openly carrying an assault-style firearm he had no business possessing. At least two of the people he shot reasonably believed they were disarming a possible mass shooter. Therefore, THEY had a right to claim self-defense or defense of others against lethal bodily harm. That said, I oppose laws that require charging a minor as an adult. We both know why those laws are on the books.
3
@MikeyDiL Not his property to defend. Not of age to work as armed security. Anyway, I'm starting to get more insight into the school shooters.
3
Ironic, all the comments against inviting this guy Rod Webber! I think Jimmy has ZERO to apologize for. Both interviews were revealing and worthwhile.
3
Vasili Arkhipov had to save the world nearly 60 years ago . . .
3
@TheWanderer656 Who was charged with arson? "The arsonists" are who, exactly? All three of Rittenhouse's actual victims were in the process of committing or attempting to commit arson? Or was somebody else doing that?
2
@jirky015 I said absolutely nothing about Rittenhouse making threats. You are responding to someone else's post by calling me a liar. Which is ironic. LOL
2
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Correct. You come upon a man shooting an unarmed man. You know nothing more. If you attempt to disarm the shooter, you can claim self-defense/defense of others. You find that confusing? That's not reassuring.
2
@stephanerenaud9666 Right. The police egged on the militias (you can research that yourself) rather than checking that kid's ID and telling him to go home. A lot of police departments need to be investigated for infiltration by radicalized militia groups.
2
@DarkPassengrr We don't prosecute people en masse, but as individuals, for their actual actions, not for what a group did. YOU endorse egging on a troubled kid who possibly should not be tried as an adult -- something I've said since day one. "Protect his community," get a GRIP. No one wants to teach these kids any more. Bigger problems are awaiting you than this one lost kid, who someone saw fit to arm with an AR 15 (!!!) and you defend (!!!!)
2
The indictment has not been withdrawn, pal.
1
@OldManVercetti Oh, that video at night? That's how you "know?" Is that how you think actual court cases go? You don't think you need any context, such as whether anything of legal significance happened before the filming started? You don't think you need authentication of every piece of evidence? A good filmmaker can make you "know" anything they want you to "know," apparently.
1
I oppose laws that require charging a minor as an adult. Does that make me a Rittenhouse "supporter?"
1
A person cannot create the conditions that require self-defense and then claim self-defense. It does not work that way. Rittenhouse was in a place where he had no business being, openly carrying an assault-style firearm he had no business possessing. At least two of the people he shot reasonably believed they were disarming a possible mass shooter, and of course they were unarmed. Therefore, THEY had a right to claim self-defense or defense of others against lethal bodily harm.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD It matters because he was a minor. Open carry by minors is illegal. Concealed carry is as well. Hiring minors as armed security guards is illegal.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD If you see someone shooting an unarmed person, knowing nothing more, and you try to disarm him, HOW ARE YOU THE AGGRESSOR? You haven't had enough minors roaming the streets with guns, huh? America needs more minors roaming the streets with very formidable looking weapons, especially at night, in demonstrations and riots.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD The very same thing happened in Illinois, involving the police. They arrived at a night club where some violence of some sort had taken place, and they shot and killed the licensed security guard, thinking he was the instigator, rather than the one trying to restore order. The police were held blameless, of course. Here we're talking about trained grownups, authorized to use force, and familiar with these scenarios. Even they made a mistake, but there was no liability, for obvious reasons.
1
@lykos89 These people are nuts. I taught part-time in community college, as a public service of sorts. This is why I will never teach again. I had students tell me they should have a right to bring their guns to class, and when I pointed out that most teachers would refuse to teach under those conditions, I was told the teachers are welcome to find other jobs. The advice was good. No argument from me. But worse than that, a very eloquent young woman who spoke out against guns in school was smeared, and painted as crazy. The story weaved its way back to me, if you can believe it.
1
@joelellis7035 OH COME ON. Then no one should try to disarm a shooter, ever. Actually, they probably shouldn't. Not worth it. See how that works, as a way of living in society with others? Or not. "Sauve qui peut la vie."
1
@heavydny86 Openly carrying a large, assault-style weapon, of the type insurgents often use in battle, when you know you are too young to have the right to possess such a firearm, is evidence of what, exactly? Of being a "stand up young man?" He never made it through junior year in high school. He has already beaten up a girl. And he is not following the terms of his bail, which include not drinking alcohol or frequenting known militia members. The kid is slow.
1
@heavydny86 He was cleaning graffiti with, what was it? An AR 15? He was a lifeguard, where? During COVID, he was a lifeguard? No, he was a very confused high school dropout with no father in the picture, an overwrought mother who had just declared bankruptcy in 2018 or something, and past problems involving hitting girlfriends. Oh, he also said he wanted to be famous. He got caught up with the wrong people. Adult people. Not enough in the news about them, I've noticed.
1
@kraar2619 Those pictures on Google maps are not to scale.
1
@Abasisten It Was A JOKE. Duh.
1
@Abasisten I know the area, I lived in Chicago.
1
@DarkPassengrr The Columbine shooters are laughing somewhere. They're the ones who won, culturally. People turn on victims now: of the Sandy Hook shooting, of the Las Vegas shooting, of vigilantes . . . Keep it up. Expect to have a civil society and an economy in ten years.
1
@bjones8470 This is a nuanced view I can relate to. I oppose laws that require charging and trying juveniles as adults, and have said so since the start. As for the video, shot at night, don't be so sure it proves self-defense. For one thing, you don't know whether anything legally significant happened before the camera started recording. This is one reason why his lawyers are poring over all the videos shot with him in them, frame by frame, and interviewing him about every significant frame. As for Rittenhouse, he has already violated conditions of his bond by drinking. Lost kid. He once said his goal in life was to be famous.
1
@jamesandayladodge4815 Oh really? Huh.
1
@rayfish007 The issue is, can you chase an individual who is bearing a deadly weapon on the good faith belief that he constitutes a mortal danger to others, and claim self defense/defense of others? (Hmm. Waddya think?) I'm not coming back to this issue again, so let me just tell you once: the REAL issue in this thread is the persistent insinuation, or outright contention, that the people Rittenhouse killed "had it coming." THAT is what I object to. Self-defense is a concept neutral to identity politics. Got that? As far as the legal process is concerned, (1) I do not support laws that AUTOMATICALLY treat juveniles as adults, such as invoked against Rittenhouse in this case; and (2) I will be perfectly willing to accept a Not Guilty verdict (on the homicide-related charges, not the gun charge) if it is the result of a scrupulously fair process. I also wonder whether various militias are preparing to intimidate the court, and trying to sway potential jurors already -- if not with political persuasion, then with something more "physical." I'll be paying attention. Because that's what it already looks like to me. You need to care more about your country. I'm being serious. No other country has had the mass shootings, even by kids, that this one has. You need to think about why that is, and not worry so much about defending Rittenhouse. He was not supposed to have a gun.
1
@rayfish007 Notice how your scenario, assuming it's correct, doesn't deal with the other two shootings. People who act on a good-faith belief that they are disarming a dangerous aggressor also have the right to claim self-defense/defense of others, even if they are mistaken (and, as it turns out, the person they are trying to disarm was not the aggressor, but engaged in legitimate self-defense himself). Anyone who thinks this case is simple is . . . A simpleton.
1
@jamesandayladodge4815 What do you know about "the world?" America in toto is less than 5% of the world. Do you think anyone else promotes heavily armed minors? The rest of the world denounces it as "child soldiers." Study a foreign language. Expand your vision.
1
@tiffanyblack7856 His lawyers can petition the court to accept an update to his address under seal, and impose a gag order. He doesn't get to hide from the court while on bail -- even if he is innocent. (He's not innocent of the gun charge, in any event.)
1
@TheSaltyGranny Is it legal to hire a minor as an armed security guard? You are all nuts. The next school shooter will be trained by his parents??
1
@jamesandayladodge4815 You need to care more about your country. I'm being serious. No other country has had the mass shootings, even by kids, that this one has. You need to think about why that is, and not worry so much about defending Rittenhouse. He was a minor. He was not supposed to have a gun.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD I'm not a liberal. Is anyone that stupid, to think that I am? Wow. Well, people who think minors should openly carry guns like AR 15s if they want, no problem . . . Or be hired as armed guards of property during civil unrest. So bright. The old saying was "consider the source."
1
@MC-wh3xm I was trained to protect young adult students in the event of a mass shooting, even if it posed a danger to me to protect them. (I was also trained as a fire marshall in a skyscraper, but I digress.) The day I knew I would no longer put a student's life above my own, I resigned. Reality check: the teachers still teaching wouldn't put their students' lives first, either -- despite the fact that they signed up for it. The joke's on you and it's not funny.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Precisely. That degree of casualness about threats to human life lead to where we are. Out of sheer curiosity -- and you don't need to respond to me, answer it in your own mind -- why do you think Rittenhouse was indicted? "Because BLM?" "Because Nancy Pelosi" and her cabal? "Because liberals?" No. I suggest you find out when self-defense legally applies. It may be useful to you to know. BTW, the full video of the preliminary hearing is online, as is the indictment, as well as his initial interview with police (and he was a minor, so it shouldn't be online in my opinion, but it's up there). The prosecution's theory of the case is what I'm telling you it is. You better hope the process is fair, because there are already attempts to intimidate the court. This poor kid was groomed by lunatics. That sums it up. Get a grip.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Not the point. In the first altercation, R used his firearm recklessly. After that, he cannot assert self-defense when others who saw what he did attempted to disarm him. They can assert defense of others. THAT is the theory of the case. You don't have to agree. The jury doesn't have to agree. But the prosecution's legal theory is solid. If they are right, he could/should be convicted. Have it your way. So long.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Obvious you did no research.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD . . . hello Dunning-Kruger
1
Nunya Bidness Wow. You're competing with the Rittenhouse fans for crazy. You can't beat them, so . . . why try? I don't get the attraction.
1
@jamesandayladodge4815 But I'm not lying. I read the indictment, which anyone can, and I watched the preliminary hearing twice, also posted, AND I oppose laws that mandate treating minors as adults in criminal matters. So, how or where did I lie? What I stated is the prosecution's theory of the case IS its theory of the case. I didn't say it's a sure-fire win. Actually, it should never be "sure-fire" -- we are supposed to presume innocence. They have to prove guilt. But it IS a solid theory. If they can prove their theory, they can get a conviction. So . . . ? How do we have a problem?
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD That's not a loophole. I'm sorry you don't know the law. I mean that literally. People who own guns and carry them are supposed to know the law of self-defense.
1
@rayfish007 You're wrong. So, are the prosecutors bringing charges "because Trump?" Or what? What do you think is the probable cause that was held, at preliminary hearing, to support all the counts of the indictment? Rittenhouse's lawyer did not EVEN move to dismiss the entire indictment. Get a CLUE.
1
@jamesandayladodge4815 And it is illegal for a 17-year-old to carry a weapon in Wisconsin. That count was briefed, then upheld at preliminary hearing as well. A jury may be allowed to consider whether any exception to the general rule applies in this case. The adults around this kid are seriously derelict. All of this is online. You could look before running your mouth about "empirical realities" you didn't bother to verify, and accusing others of lying.
1
Nunya Bidness His lawyers are doing him no favors. They are nuts in how defiant they have been, when the obvious route is to garner sympathy for a minor with serious problems.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD You tell me why Rittenhouse's lawyers failed to move to dismiss the entire indictment. Find the documents and watch the preliminary hearing, and then come and talk to me about "arguments." All you can manage is kindergarten name calling.
1
I'm starting to get the impression that a lot of people use drugs. It's not about sides, it's about drugs/no drugs.
1
@jamesandayladodge4815 I said no such thing, and you know it. You are deliberately conflating MY statements with statements made by others who support this prosecution, while demanding the right to be treated as an individual for yourselves -- and for someone who did kill two people. Guess what hapoens when you do that? Nobody cares when it's done to you.
1
@rayfish007 So why isn't the defense moving to dismiss the entire indictment? I mean, there's no basis for it, except for misguided public outcry, after all -- by your lights. Everyone is wrong but you. You know more about what happened than the detectives and the prosecutors -- and the defense, for that matter. You know more "facts." And law. LOL
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Okay, this is sad now. I feel sorry for you. A theory of the case is not "law" but it must be based on the law. This one is. Otherwise, it cannot proceed, because it lacks probable cause to proceed. It would have already been dismissed. If the theory of the case is not based on LAW, and reason to believe that the FACTS show the law(s) was (were) violated by the accused, there is nothing to go to trial about. At this point, you are a time waster. Say whatever you want next. This is just sad.
1
@jamesandayladodge4815 I don't support some of the laws he was charged under, which mandate that minors be charged as adults in all such cases. I disagreed with that from Day One, and even inane comments "in support" of Rittenhouse that I see proliferating will not sway me. Jimmy Dore brings opposing viewpoints to his show. I respect his choice of guests here, and when he invited a "Boogaloo Boy" or however you spell it. Rittenhouse wasn't hunting, nor was he properly supervised by an adult parent, guardian, or adult acting in loco parentis, nor are the adults around him doing him any favors now. Instead of arguing that he had a right to have an AR 15 (!!), maybe you should open your eyes and see what a disordered KID this is, and how the adults in this picture have deliberately led him astray, and continue to lead him astray, when it's his entire future that's on the line. What I've said implies zero approval of any riot. Zero. If you can't see that, you have the vision problem. YOU have "politicized" this incident. Of COURSE you accuse others of doing precisely what you are doing. Every time.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Charges not being dismissed means probable cause. "Not guilty" means guilt was not proved at trial. That's what I said. Over and over. Good luck with your reading program.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD N. B. A "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean the prosecutor was "wrong." It means he failed to prove his case. If there were no way to prove the case, then it shouldn't be brought. (Still haven't figured out why the defense did not move to dismiss the whole indictment, instead of trying to dismiss only two counts? Are they in cahoots with the prosecutor? Ha ha.)
1
@Xxairbear23xX Who was unarmed and had not shot the gun he didn't have. Heaven forbid anyone tries to disarm any shooter, ever. They are violating his Second Amendment rights.
1
@Xxairbear23xX Why didn't the lawyer move to drop all charges? Hint: possibly certain matters are questions for a jury, not Court YouTube.
1
@Xxairbear23xX No, I'm not. I'm telling you why he's being prosecuted. I would not want to prosecute this case. I don't believe in laws that require treating minors as adults, and I don't believe this justice system is likely to rehabilitate this kid. I don't see a good outcome, frankly. You people cheering him on are nuts. The adults around him are the main reason why this cognitively challenged kid is where he is. Go find a sports team to cheer. Double jeopardy applies to a sovereign. It has no bearing on this discussion.
1
@Xxairbear23xX How do you know he will be acquitted? He is being charged as an adult under a law that mandates charging juveniles his age as adults, even though he wasn't one at the time of the shootings. You didn't know? I bet that's what threw you.
1
@Xxairbear23xX Okay, okay. He will be acquitted, I mean he was already acquitted, I mean they suspended the trial, dismissed all charges, and jailed the prosecutor. And the judge. And the detectives and the bailiff. All are begging Rittenhouse for mercy. Whatever has to be true, is. I promise.
1
@Xxairbear23xX He was acquitted. The judge has been jailed. Anything that needs to happen will happen. Just remain calm. Who needs courts when we have YouTube? It's all on YouTube.
1
@Xxairbear23xX How can anything possibly change your facts? You have a God-given right as an American to any facts you desire. Rittenhouse will be President someday! You heard it here first. I hope the prison warden shows some mercy toward the judge and the prosecutor. If Rittenhouse pardons them one day, it would make for a cool movie.
1
@Xxairbear23xX So his lawyer moved to dismiss the entire indictment and the court agreed? Wait. That didn't happen. Hmm . . . Might there be a jury question here?
1
@Xxairbear23xX I never said he can't be acquitted. You want me to say he MUST be acquitted, which is not true. Trial courts don't set precedents, only higher courts do. But you're the smart one. (The preliminary hearing is on YouTube, the indictment and defense motions are posted online. You can already regale yourself with those.) If a defendant must be acquitted, then there is nothing to drag him in front of a jury for. He shouldn't be tried at all.
1
@Xxairbear23xX No, trial courts do not set precedent. Look it up at a law school website, one that gives actual definitions of legal terms. Or have it your way. We don't want you to be upset.
1
There are a lot of problems with Kyle Rittenhouse, not the least of which is that the POLICE are on video praising the armed vigilantes and giving them water. Are the police infiltrated by right-wing extremists? They influenced Rittenhouse, instead of checking his ID. Rittenhouse was a minor. Why did he have a firearm? Who bought it for him? Who was he with? He has been charged under a law that mandates charging him as an adult. I oppose such oppressive laws. Now, he's partying with the right-wing extremists who bailed him out of jail. Chaos, and unprincipled from beginning to end.
1