fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.

---

I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.

---

It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.

---

vigilante

vj-lnt
noun
[ol]

A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.

A member of a vigilance committee.

A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.

[/ol]
Looks like we are both correct

---

My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.

---

I said we were both correct. Look at #3

---

He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

Thanks for your concession.

---

Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage

---

To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.

---

No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.

---

He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.

---

He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.

---

That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.

---

Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!

---

Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.

---

I read the statue as well. and I listened to the Judge.

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.

---

I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.

---

It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.

---

vigilante

vj-lnt
noun
[ol]

A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.

A member of a vigilance committee.

A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.

[/ol]
Looks like we are both correct

---

My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.

---

I said we were both correct. Look at #3

---

He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

Thanks for your concession.

---

Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage

---

To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.

---

No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.

---

He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.

---

He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.

---

That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.

---

Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!

---

Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.

---

I read the statue as well. and I listened to the Judge.

---

Wangchung said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.

---

I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.

---

It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.

---

vigilante

vj-lnt
noun
[ol]

A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.

A member of a vigilance committee.

A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.

[/ol]
Looks like we are both correct

---

My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.

---

I said we were both correct. Look at #3

---

He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

Thanks for your concession.

---

Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage

---

To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.

---

No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.

---

He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.

---

He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.

---

That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.

---

Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!

---

Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.

---

I read the statue as well. and I listened to the Judge.

---

I thought those had all been torn down in order to end systemic racism.

---

FormerFlash said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

No one in the room felt the need to say or do anything about an ‘accused double murderer’ leaning over the judge from behind, completely unshackled

Tells you everything you need to know pic.twitter.com/PhgtwaYQEa

— Jacek Posobiec 🇺🇸🇵🇱 (@JackPosobiec) November 13, 2021

---

Whey they make this story into a movie, Jeffrey Tambor should play the judge.

---

fadskier said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Canon said:

---

fadskier said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.

---

I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.

---

It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.

---

vigilante

vj-lnt
noun
[ol]

A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.

A member of a vigilance committee.

A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.

[/ol]
Looks like we are both correct

---

My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.

---

I said we were both correct. Look at #3

---

He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

Thanks for your concession.

---

Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage

---

To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.

---

No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.

---

He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.

---

He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.

---

That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.

---

Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!

---

Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.

---

I read the statue as well. and I listened to the Judge.

---

I thought those had all been torn down in order to end systemic racism.

---

That's what happens when I type too quickly.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work very hard at being a *****, quash.

You can stop now, you have convinced everyone here you are indeed a soulless barrister.

---

90sBear said:

---

quash said:

---

90sBear said:

---

quash said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

OUT:
Kyle is a white supremacist.

IN:
The Judge is incompetent

SUPERCUT!

Media: Only reason Rittenhouse will walk is because the judge sucks pic.twitter.com/PZvv8MgGUm

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 15, 2021

---

The judge has made some missteps but he's well under the Ito Line.

---

Media has gone well beyond calling him incompetent and has been doing so for a while.

---

Like I keep saying, I don't watch the news, so I'll just take your word on that.

---

He's racist because of his phone ringtone, a joke he made about boats being stuck in Long Beach Harbor, and he's made it more difficult for the prosecution than they would like.

He also honored veterans, another no-no.

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

If this were the Boston Tea Party, young Kyle just rode his horse down from Concord with Dad's musket and shot someone on the dock throwing tea into the bay. Hooray for the loyalist to the Crown.

---

Except one pointed a weapon at him, another one tried to grab his musket from him, and a third tried to wack him unconscious with part of one of the tea barrels.

Why does Kyle not possess the right to self defense?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

If this were the Boston Tea Party, young Kyle just rode his horse down from Concord with Dad's musket and shot someone on the dock throwing tea into the bay. Hooray for the loyalist to the Crown.

---

Except one pointed a weapon at him, another one tried to grab his musket from him, and a third tried to wack him unconscious with part of one of the tea barrels.

Why does Kyle not possess the right to self defense?

---

Ah yes! The actual issue at hand. He absolutely does. But some of you want to draw parallels to the founders and early America which are absolutely absurd.

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

If this were the Boston Tea Party, young Kyle just rode his horse down from Concord with Dad's musket and shot someone on the dock throwing tea into the bay. Hooray for the loyalist to the Crown.

---

Nope. They weren't burning East Indian tea. They were burning down their neighbors' shops. Your analogy is absurd. He was there to protect innocent people not the Crown's tea.

Never mind the Boston tea party was specifically against a taxed item at issue and ALL care was taken to not destroy anything but that one item….down to locks being replaced, if I recall.

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

If this were the Boston Tea Party, young Kyle just rode his horse down from Concord with Dad's musket and shot someone on the dock throwing tea into the bay. Hooray for the loyalist to the Crown.

---

Except one pointed a weapon at him, another one tried to grab his musket from him, and a third tried to wack him unconscious with part of one of the tea barrels.

Why does Kyle not possess the right to self defense?

---

Ah yes! The actual issue at hand. He absolutely does. But some of you want to draw parallels to the founders and early America which are absolutely absurd.

---

Why? Both Kyle and the people who fought the American revolution fought oppressive, violent forces. Kyle went to offer aid and put out fires on DAY THREE of the riots that were allowed to rage on by the government. Kyle, like the people who fought in the American revolution, risked life and limb to save their fellow citizens. Once you're able to stop seeing things through the leftist lens you rely on it's easy to see the parallels. You just don't WANT to see them, but that really only means anything to you.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

If this were the Boston Tea Party, young Kyle just rode his horse down from Concord with Dad's musket and shot someone on the dock throwing tea into the bay. Hooray for the loyalist to the Crown.

---

Nope. They weren't burning East Indian tea. They were burning down their neighbors' shops. Your analogy is absurd. He was there to protect innocent people not the Crown's tea.

Never mind the Boston tea party was specifically against a taxed item at issue and ALL care was taken to not destroy anything but that one item….down to locks being replaced, if I recall.

---

The people were rioting over police overreach of killing citizens. You can disagree with their reasoning, but let's not pretend Rittenhouse was some hero soldier working for the innocents. Hell, the SBA and state governments are giving financial loans and grants to those impacted by the violence, not to mention insurance. But yes, we were a much more civil society then.

Let's keep our eye on the ball and not live in absurd platitudes. This is about the right to self defense and whether it was such. Nothing more, and Rittenhouse isn't some grass roots hero.

---

Some were rioting over police overreach, but the BLM/Antifa agenda is about more than that. Destruction of property is part of a calculated strategy to undermine government and the capitalist system. Rittenhouse and his friends stood in the way of that.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

If this were the Boston Tea Party, young Kyle just rode his horse down from Concord with Dad's musket and shot someone on the dock throwing tea into the bay. Hooray for the loyalist to the Crown.

---

Except one pointed a weapon at him, another one tried to grab his musket from him, and a third tried to wack him unconscious with part of one of the tea barrels.

Why does Kyle not possess the right to self defense?

---

Ah yes! The actual issue at hand. He absolutely does. But some of you want to draw parallels to the founders and early America which are absolutely absurd.

---

Why? Both Kyle and the people who fought the American revolution fought oppressive, violent forces. Kyle went to offer aid and put out fires on DAY THREE of the riots that were allowed to rage on by the government. Kyle, like the people who fought in the American revolution, risked life and limb to save their fellow citizens. Once you're able to stop seeing things through the leftist lens you rely on it's easy to see the parallels. You just don't WANT to see them, but that really only means anything to you.

---

Who are the oppressors? The people rioting because they don't want the government to kill citizens without clear explanation? You can disagree with them, but you're ultimately on the side of the government, the only real entity capable of oppression and the only parallel to the British Crown. The "oppressors" are paying and going to pay those who were impacted by the riots through grants and loans. In colonial times, they might have come home to their home burned and their family hanging from a tree. Not the same and not close. This was a street fight, and the boundaries of self defense is at question.

---

Terrorists and other non-government actors are quite capable of oppression.

---

I'm going to laugh when you flip your arguments on the same people liking your reply when the Jan. 6 issue comes up again. Well done Sam, and I give you points for consistency.

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

If this were the Boston Tea Party, young Kyle just rode his horse down from Concord with Dad's musket and shot someone on the dock throwing tea into the bay. Hooray for the loyalist to the Crown.

---

Nope. They weren't burning East Indian tea. They were burning down their neighbors' shops. Your analogy is absurd. He was there to protect innocent people not the Crown's tea.

Never mind the Boston tea party was specifically against a taxed item at issue and ALL care was taken to not destroy anything but that one item….down to locks being replaced, if I recall.

---

The people were rioting over police overreach of killing citizens. You can disagree with their reasoning, but let's not pretend Rittenhouse was some hero soldier working for the innocents. Hell, the SBA and state governments are giving financial loans and grants to those impacted by the violence, not to mention insurance. But yes, we were a much more civil society then.

Let's keep our eye on the ball and not live in absurd platitudes. This is about the right to self defense and whether it was such. Nothing more, and Rittenhouse isn't some grass roots hero.

---

Some were rioting over police overreach, but the BLM/Antifa agenda is about more than that. Destruction of property is part of a calculated strategy to undermine government and the capitalist system. Rittenhouse and his friends stood in the way of that.

---

I agree with your assessment of the BLM agenda, but Rittenhouse didn't stand in the way of anything. He was a provocateur not unlike his antagonists.

---

Except he did not injure anyone who was not trying to kill him or inflict serious bodily harm on him.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.

---

This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.

---

Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.

---

Said nobody on this board

---

Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.

---

If this were the Boston Tea Party, young Kyle just rode his horse down from Concord with Dad's musket and shot someone on the dock throwing tea into the bay. Hooray for the loyalist to the Crown.

---

Nope. They weren't burning East Indian tea. They were burning down their neighbors' shops. Your analogy is absurd. He was there to protect innocent people not the Crown's tea.

Never mind the Boston tea party was specifically against a taxed item at issue and ALL care was taken to not destroy anything but that one item….down to locks being replaced, if I recall.

---

The people were rioting over police overreach of killing citizens. You can disagree with their reasoning, but let's not pretend Rittenhouse was some hero soldier working for the innocents. Hell, the SBA and state governments are giving financial loans and grants to those impacted by the violence, not to mention insurance. But yes, we were a much more civil society then.

Let's keep our eye on the ball and not live in absurd platitudes. This is about the right to self defense and whether it was such. Nothing more, and Rittenhouse isn't some grass roots hero.

---

Some were rioting over police overreach, but the BLM/Antifa agenda is about more than that. Destruction of property is part of a calculated strategy to undermine government and the capitalist system. Rittenhouse and his friends stood in the way of that.

---

I agree with your assessment of the BLM agenda, but Rittenhouse didn't stand in the way of anything. He was a provocateur not unlike his antagonists.

---

Except he did not injure anyone who was not trying to kill him or inflict serious bodily harm on him.

---

And that's what the trial is about, and what this whole situation should be about. Even trouble makers have a right to self defense if determined to be such.

---

DOOCY: “Why did President Biden suggest that Kyle Rittenhouse…is a white supremacist?”

PSAKI: “I'm not gonna speak to right now is anything about an ongoing trial, nor the President's past comments...We shouldn’t have, broadly speaking, vigilantes patrolling our communities." pic.twitter.com/BIFiFcRzAE

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 15, 2021