Kyle Rittenhouse

[freyasman]

You can not be provocative carrying a gun around, and then claim self defense.
It is not like he was defending any of his own property or that of anyone he knew.
Essentially he was there looking for trouble, with the intent of intimidating people he assumed were going to be unarmed.

But just carrying a gun around, cannot be legally construed to be "provocative".

Not too provocative if holstered, but very provocative if a rifle carried in your hands, as you walk around to mingle with demonstrators.
What other purpose could he have had other then intentionally trying to intimidate?
And while intimidation itself can be justified if there was some particular property he wanted to defend, it is clear he was not concerned with any property.
Which means that instead he was deliberately trying to intimidate protestors in order to scare them into leaving.
And that not only violates their 1st amendment right, but is extremely dangerous and irresponsible.
No one else was visibly armed but the police.
You can't get any more provocative than that.

In a place where it is legal to be armed, simply doing so cannot be criminalized.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Keep on preaching your whackjob version of events...

I.E., the prosecution's version, which they will definitely keep on preaching in a court of law. Let's hope, for poor Kyle's sake, that his lawyers are smarter and more capable than you and do not have to resort to childish tantrums in court, as you have in this thread.

 

[Kat]

Enough.