Kyle Rittenhouse trial

54,725 Views | 970 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by boognish_bear
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To recap here are the 6 charges against Rittenhouse. #6 has been dropped so now there are 5.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:
  • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years
  • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
  • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
  • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed on November 15, 2021; the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It already feels like they have deliberated for far too long.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle Rittenhouse Asked To Step Outside And Defend The Courthouse While Verdict Is Being Read

https://babylonbee.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-asked-to-step-outside-and-defend-the-courthouse-while-verdict-is-being-read?fbclid=IwAR2UuyYhpTmPYi6YeRWOe0dgXNueERjWS4WqSFfBb18SRERyhWBRStAvCNI
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

To recap here are the 6 charges against Rittenhouse. #6 has been dropped so now there are 5.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:
  • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years
  • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
  • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
  • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed on November 15, 2021; the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)

Explain the second bullet...I must have missed that...
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Jack Bauer said:

To recap here are the 6 charges against Rittenhouse. #6 has been dropped so now there are 5.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:
  • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years
  • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
  • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
  • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed on November 15, 2021; the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)

Explain the second bullet...I must have missed that...
Prosecution claims Kyle pointed his gun at Richard McGinnis.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

fadskier said:

Jack Bauer said:

To recap here are the 6 charges against Rittenhouse. #6 has been dropped so now there are 5.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:
  • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years
  • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
  • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
  • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed on November 15, 2021; the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)

Explain the second bullet...I must have missed that...
Prosecution claims Kyle pointed his gun at Richard McGinnis.
Oy vey!
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

fadskier said:

Jack Bauer said:

To recap here are the 6 charges against Rittenhouse. #6 has been dropped so now there are 5.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:
  • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years
  • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
  • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
  • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed on November 15, 2021; the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)

Explain the second bullet...I must have missed that...
Prosecution claims Kyle pointed his gun at Richard McGinnis.
Well then the prosecution should be convicted because he pointed that same gun at the jury...
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years

How reckless of Kyle to hurt this poor man...


quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

fadskier said:

Jack Bauer said:

To recap here are the 6 charges against Rittenhouse. #6 has been dropped so now there are 5.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:
  • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years
  • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
  • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
  • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed on November 15, 2021; the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)

Explain the second bullet...I must have missed that...
Prosecution claims Kyle pointed his gun at Richard McGinnis.

The prosecutor pointed the gun at most of the courtroom while introducing it into evidence..
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years

How reckless of Kyle to hurt this poor man...




That guy didn't get hurt. Or identified.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Redbrickbear said:

fadskier said:

Jack Bauer said:

To recap here are the 6 charges against Rittenhouse. #6 has been dropped so now there are 5.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:
  • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years
  • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
  • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
  • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed on November 15, 2021; the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)

Explain the second bullet...I must have missed that...
Prosecution claims Kyle pointed his gun at Richard McGinnis.

The prosecutor pointed the gun at most of the courtroom while introducing it into evidence..

With his finger on the trigger, no less.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?
LOL

The kid who was on site rendering first aid and volunteering to protect private property,... "didn't have any reason to be there"...

but the violent rioters who were destroying property, setting fires and attacking people.. they definitely should have been there and been protected from people like Rittenhouse??

What planet do you live on??

Rittenhouse was invited to be on that property by the owner of that private property.. the violent rioters who were committing crimes were the ones who had no reason to be there.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Jack Bauer said:


Truly, it's easy to see the msm is the enemy of all Americans. If we had an unbiased media the Republicans Americans would rule.

FIFY

Actually.. those are one in the same, so maybe you were right in the first place... sorry for the unnecessary addition.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?
LOL

The kid who was on site rendering first aid and volunteering to protect private property,... "didn't have any reason to be there"...

but the violent rioters who were destroying property, setting fires and attacking people.. they definitely should have been there and been protected from people like Rittenhouse??

What planet do you live on??

Rittenhouse was invited to be on that property by the owner of that private property.. the violent rioters who were committing crimes were the ones who had no reason to be there.

Not invited but not told to leave exactly.

KENOSHA, Wis. Two brothers whose family owns three car lots downtown told jurors in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial they never asked his group of armed men to protect their businesses or gave them permission to do so.

Some from that group have previously testified a friend of a friend of Rittenhouse's who used to work at Car Source had offered to help, and Anmol "Sam" Khindri accepted, and gave keys to get inside the repair shop and a ladder to get on the roof.

Khindri told jurors Friday he had no such conversations, nor did he offer keys to the shop. He recalled that early on Aug 25, 2020, Rittenhouse was among dozens of people who spoke to him with sympathy and encouragement after the family's main car lot had been burned on the first night of unrest.

--
Sahil, who posed for a picture outside the Car Source with Rittenhouse and a group of heavily armed civilians, testified that he hadn't actually known any of the men at the time. He requested a photo because he was "so impressed" by the way the men were dressed, and had previously only seen armed men like that on television, he said.

He told the court that he didn't ask the men to protect the business, but he also didn't ask them to leave.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Wangchung said:

Jack Bauer said:


Truly, it's easy to see the msm is the enemy of all Americans. If we had an unbiased media the Republicans Americans would rule.

FIFY

Actually.. those are one in the same, so maybe you were right in the first place... sorry for the unnecessary addition.
Good catch.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The corporate press are building a narrative that simultaneously encourages riots while threatening anyone who defends themselves with a public lynching by law.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The only way Kyle Rittenhouse is not acquitted is if the judge allows the jurors to mail in their ballots.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

The corporate press are building a narrative that simultaneously encourages riots while threatening anyone who defends themselves with a public lynching by law.



This is a threat from the paper.

We need citizens in the streets shooting every violent criminal they see in the act. With enough mass, the arrests can't happen. With enough range, no one will be able to identify the heroes taking out the violent criminals either. Fingers crossed, if there's rioting and violence there, we see some local citizens put down the threat.

EDIT: Come to think of it, they wouldn't even need to kill the violent terrorists. All they'd need to do is shoot them in the ass at 200+ yards with a lower caliber round. A dozen antifa terrorists with bullets in their asses would slow down the terrorist violence considerably. And cops would finally come out to find out who put an end to the terrorist activity. Win-Win.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?
LOL

The kid who was on site rendering first aid and volunteering to protect private property,... "didn't have any reason to be there"...

but the violent rioters who were destroying property, setting fires and attacking people.. they definitely should have been there and been protected from people like Rittenhouse??

What planet do you live on??

Rittenhouse was invited to be on that property by the owner of that private property.. the violent rioters who were committing crimes were the ones who had no reason to be there.

Not invited but not told to leave exactly.

KENOSHA, Wis. Two brothers whose family owns three car lots downtown told jurors in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial they never asked his group of armed men to protect their businesses or gave them permission to do so.

Some from that group have previously testified a friend of a friend of Rittenhouse's who used to work at Car Source had offered to help, and Anmol "Sam" Khindri accepted, and gave keys to get inside the repair shop and a ladder to get on the roof.

Khindri told jurors Friday he had no such conversations, nor did he offer keys to the shop. He recalled that early on Aug 25, 2020, Rittenhouse was among dozens of people who spoke to him with sympathy and encouragement after the family's main car lot had been burned on the first night of unrest.

--
Sahil, who posed for a picture outside the Car Source with Rittenhouse and a group of heavily armed civilians, testified that he hadn't actually known any of the men at the time. He requested a photo because he was "so impressed" by the way the men were dressed, and had previously only seen armed men like that on television, he said.

He told the court that he didn't ask the men to protect the business, but he also didn't ask them to leave.

It's apparently a surprise for some to learn that random people with weapons are not the preferred method of business or property protection. Both sides are building their own narratives. The crazed vigilante out to kill people vs the defender of property and people. Reality is armed individuals met on the street and was the interaction sufficient to warrant self defense.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?
LOL

The kid who was on site rendering first aid and volunteering to protect private property,... "didn't have any reason to be there"...

but the violent rioters who were destroying property, setting fires and attacking people.. they definitely should have been there and been protected from people like Rittenhouse??

What planet do you live on??

Rittenhouse was invited to be on that property by the owner of that private property.. the violent rioters who were committing crimes were the ones who had no reason to be there.

Didn't the owner deny asking him? So no he wasn't invited, and he was out amongst rioters with an AR. Yeah he's an idiot. Some of you may think he was a monk medic on the beaches of Normandy, sworn to nonviolence unless attacked, rendering aid to allies and Nazis with equal measure, but that's a little different from what happened. He should never have been where he was, alone, open carrying an AR. Absolutely stupid.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

Wangchung said:

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?
LOL

The kid who was on site rendering first aid and volunteering to protect private property,... "didn't have any reason to be there"...

but the violent rioters who were destroying property, setting fires and attacking people.. they definitely should have been there and been protected from people like Rittenhouse??

What planet do you live on??

Rittenhouse was invited to be on that property by the owner of that private property.. the violent rioters who were committing crimes were the ones who had no reason to be there.

Didn't the owner deny asking him? So no he wasn't invited, and he was out amongst rioters with an AR. Yeah he's an idiot. Some of you may think he was a monk medic on the beaches of Normandy, sworn to nonviolence unless attacked, rendering aid to allies and Nazis with equal measure, but that's a little different from what happened. He should never have been where he was, alone, open carrying an AR. Absolutely stupid.
He was standing outside a car dealership, attempting to protect the building and cars from being destroyed when the first guy started chasing him around the parking lot. The guy was screaming at Rittenhouse, and threatening his life. Rittenhouse was running away from the guy and finally had to shoot him once it was clear that he wasn't going to escape.
Then the crowd began to gather around and yell at Rittenhouse, who got scared and ran down the street, towards the cops who were standing at the end of the street.
While he was running down the street, several of the rioters chased after him. One of them caught up to him and hit him in the back of the head with the skateboard, knocking Rittenhouse to the ground. Then they jumped him while he was on the ground. One of the scumbags who was trying to stomp his head into the ground was shot by Rittenhouse... another dead scumbag, and another public service.
Rittenhouse is still on the ground when another guy runs up on him, this time with a gun in his hand. When he points the gun at his head, Rittenhouse shot this scumbag in the arm.
Finally, Rittenhouse is able to get up and continues to run to the cops... who tell him to get off the streets and spray him with pepper spray.

So no... he wasn't "amongst the rioters with an AR" as you described it. He was not even on the street until he was trying to run to the cops for help. He was standing on private property, in an effort to defend that property from destruction. If the rioters had just walked down the street... nothing would have ever happened. Nothing did happen until the convicted pedophile began chasing Rittenhouse around the parking lot and threatening to kill Rittenhouse.

The people who should have never been there are the pedophile, the wife beater and the criminal with the handgun.... sadly, one of those scumbags survived the justified shootings.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Jack Bauer said:

To recap here are the 6 charges against Rittenhouse. #6 has been dropped so now there are 5.

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:
  • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years
  • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
  • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
  • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
  • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (dismissed on November 15, 2021; the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)

Explain the second bullet...I must have missed that...
he had a gun while talking to a reporter that he later used.

2,5,&6 are add ons to the main 3
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When people say Kyle had no right to be there and don't say the same about the rioters it means they are admitting the riots were being allowed to continue, even encouraged by democrat politicians and pundits, therefor the only people who were NOT allowed out on the streets of Kenosha were those trying to stop the riots.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

When people say Kyle had no right to be there and don't say the same about the rioters it means they are admitting the riots were being allowed to continue, even encouraged by democrat politicians and pundits, therefor the only people who were NOT allowed out on the streets of Kenosha were those trying to stop the riots.
Kyle wasnt trying to stop the protest, Kyle was passively protecting property until he was acted upon when the protests gave way to rioting/vandalism/violence

If you cause a fatal car accident with a person who's driving without a drivers license, your defense cannot be "well if the guy with no drivers license wasn't driving then I wouldn't of hit them." That's not gonna work as a defense..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Wangchung said:

When people say Kyle had no right to be there and don't say the same about the rioters it means they are admitting the riots were being allowed to continue, even encouraged by democrat politicians and pundits, therefor the only people who were NOT allowed out on the streets of Kenosha were those trying to stop the riots.
Kyle wasnt trying to stop the protest, Kyle was passively protecting property until he was acted upon when the protests gave way to rioting/vandalism/violence

If you cause a fatal car accident with a person who's driving without a drivers license, your defense cannot be "well if the guy with no drivers license wasn't driving then I wouldn't of hit them." That's not gonna work as a defense..
I don't think anyone showed up to stop protests. It was the riots people were sick of watching go on without intervention. Kyle showed up to protect friendly owned property AND to offer first aid to anyone who needed it. But your post is dead on.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Wangchung said:

When people say Kyle had no right to be there and don't say the same about the rioters it means they are admitting the riots were being allowed to continue, even encouraged by democrat politicians and pundits, therefor the only people who were NOT allowed out on the streets of Kenosha were those trying to stop the riots.
Kyle wasnt trying to stop the protest, Kyle was passively protecting property until he was acted upon when the protests gave way to rioting/vandalism/violence

If you cause a fatal car accident with a person who's driving without a drivers license, your defense cannot be "well if the guy with no drivers license wasn't driving then I wouldn't of hit them." That's not gonna work as a defense..
This is interesting, but the car accident analogy is WAY off.

The better analogy is if person A is attempting to run over pedestrian B, and then pedestrian B defends themselves leading to the death of person A... and then person C claims that pedestrian B was actually a jay-walker who should be arrested... THAT is closer to what is occuring here.

There was no "accident" in this case. The pedophile, the wife beater and the criminal with a gun all attacked the kid with the AR15... not an accident at all.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In modern America we have to live with leftists & liberals threatening judges and their families with death.

And the FBI will investigate parents at school board meetings but not death threats against judges.
FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Isn't threatening the life a of a sitting judge to influence the outcome of a trial a federal offence?
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FormerFlash said:

Isn't threatening the life a of a sitting judge to influence the outcome of a trial a federal offence?

Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.