A time line of kyle

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24,507
Reaction score
10,228
Points
950
THe ow
He should have stayed home.

So should the antifa/blm joe biden voters who were burning, looting, beating and attacking people.........had they not been there they wouldn't have been shot.
It was not his responsibility to go there to provide justice.
That doesnt make it wrong or even a crime.
Vigilantism usually is a crime though. He and others went there to provide justice and protection without legal authorization and ultimately killed people by putting himself in a position where violence between him and others were inevitable.

Wrong.......he went there to stand guard over a business....and to render first aid. They attacked him...what about that isn't sinking in?

They chased him down, in all 3 shootings....what part of that is still not getting into your brain?
Stand guard over a business that wasn't his. Why that business? Render first aid? Why carry a rifle and not a medical kit? Was he there to fight or to render aid?
The owner of the business asked him to go and look after it. He did have a first aid kit. That's why he was wearing gloves.
A business owner can't effectively deputize a minor to defend his property with lethal force, plus the business owner (Car Source) has already said that they did not hire security. He simply just joined up with a militia group to take it upon themselves to defend businesses, vigilantism.
No one was deputized. There was no militia group. Have you ever been in a riot?
No-one was hired either. I have not been in a riot, I don't plan on going to find one so that I can participate in the violence either.
No one has to be hired. Just asked. I've been in several riots. There are not well organized.
He wasn't asked by the business owner either.
I dont think that matters.
It does matter since that's what he told police and that was his reason for supposedly traveling there.
thats not the reason why he traveled there,,,

he worked there and was there helping clean up the mess left by the rioters,,,
He didn't work there. He claimed he was hired to be security which the owner has denied. He doesnt even live in that state.
he worked in the town,,, and was there all day cleaning up,,
And he brought a rifle with him and used it
to defend himself against violent attackers,,,
That he went looking for since he wasn't really there at a business owners request. Lawyers will play these games.
let them,,, the facts about the attack are he was attacked and defended himself,,

if he didnt have the gun he would be dead or severely beaten,,
He probably wouldn't have even been there without the gun.
so now youre a mind reader,,,

he was there all day without a gun,,,
And made sure to arm up when he went to defend the business he wasn't asked to defend? So he clearly didn't stumble his way innocently into the violence. He was ready for it. He went looking for it?
he didnt stumble into violence,,, he was attacked by rioters,,,
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24,507
Reaction score
10,228
Points
950
he didnt stumble into violence,,, he was attacked by rioters,,,
I know he didn't stumble into violence. He obviously went looking for it. He made sure to get his gun and then put himself in harms way.
back to mind reading I see,,,

sure hope the prosecution goes into it with that crap, it will be the shortest jury deliberation in history with a not guilty verdict,,,
 

JordannaNY

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
89
Reaction score
36
Points
21
he didnt stumble into violence,,, he was attacked by rioters,,,
I know he didn't stumble into violence. He obviously went looking for it. He made sure to get his gun and then put himself in harms way.
back to mind reading I see,,,

sure hope the prosecution goes into it with that crap, it will be the shortest jury deliberation in history with a not guilty verdict,,,
Again, not mind reading, just pointing out things that will be talked about and manipulated. Prosecutors aren't just going to agree with the defendant.
 

JordannaNY

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
89
Reaction score
36
Points
21
Ok well it's been real but I have to work tomorrow. It was fun arguing with you guys, no hard feelings. Goodnight.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24,507
Reaction score
10,228
Points
950
he didnt stumble into violence,,, he was attacked by rioters,,,
I know he didn't stumble into violence. He obviously went looking for it. He made sure to get his gun and then put himself in harms way.
back to mind reading I see,,,

sure hope the prosecution goes into it with that crap, it will be the shortest jury deliberation in history with a not guilty verdict,,,
Again, not mind reading, just pointing out things that will be talked about and manipulated. Prosecutors aren't just going to agree with the defendant.
let them,, wont change the facts of the video proof he was attacked and fleeing,,,
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
43,922
Reaction score
16,990
Points
2,250
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
THe ow
He should have stayed home.

So should the antifa/blm joe biden voters who were burning, looting, beating and attacking people.........had they not been there they wouldn't have been shot.
It was not his responsibility to go there to provide justice.
That doesnt make it wrong or even a crime.
Vigilantism usually is a crime though. He and others went there to provide justice and protection without legal authorization and ultimately killed people by putting himself in a position where violence between him and others were inevitable.

Wrong.......he went there to stand guard over a business....and to render first aid. They attacked him...what about that isn't sinking in?

They chased him down, in all 3 shootings....what part of that is still not getting into your brain?
Stand guard over a business that wasn't his. Why that business? Render first aid? Why carry a rifle and not a medical kit? Was he there to fight or to render aid?
The owner of the business asked him to go and look after it. He did have a first aid kit. That's why he was wearing gloves.
A business owner can't effectively deputize a minor to defend his property with lethal force, plus the business owner (Car Source) has already said that they did not hire security. He simply just joined up with a militia group to take it upon themselves to defend businesses, vigilantism.
No one was deputized. There was no militia group. Have you ever been in a riot?
No-one was hired either. I have not been in a riot, I don't plan on going to find one so that I can participate in the violence either.
No one has to be hired. Just asked. I've been in several riots. There are not well organized.
He wasn't asked by the business owner either.
I dont think that matters.
It does matter since that's what he told police and that was his reason for supposedly traveling there.
What does that have to do with him shooting those people? Assuming youre right about him saying that, what difference does it make? All that matters is whats on the video.
Because you could now make the argument that his intent was not benevolent. If he lied about his reason for being there then what was the reason? A good lawyer can turn that lie into something pretty nefarious.
His intent is irrelevant. You clearly see him running away until the guy catches up to him and leaves him with no choice but to defend himself.
The argument could be made that the people attacking him were doing it out of self defense since he was the one with the gun.
You're bias sure shows.
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
43,922
Reaction score
16,990
Points
2,250
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
THe ow
He should have stayed home.

So should the antifa/blm joe biden voters who were burning, looting, beating and attacking people.........had they not been there they wouldn't have been shot.
It was not his responsibility to go there to provide justice.
That doesnt make it wrong or even a crime.
Vigilantism usually is a crime though. He and others went there to provide justice and protection without legal authorization and ultimately killed people by putting himself in a position where violence between him and others were inevitable.

Wrong.......he went there to stand guard over a business....and to render first aid. They attacked him...what about that isn't sinking in?

They chased him down, in all 3 shootings....what part of that is still not getting into your brain?
Stand guard over a business that wasn't his. Why that business? Render first aid? Why carry a rifle and not a medical kit? Was he there to fight or to render aid?
The owner of the business asked him to go and look after it. He did have a first aid kit. That's why he was wearing gloves.
A business owner can't effectively deputize a minor to defend his property with lethal force, plus the business owner (Car Source) has already said that they did not hire security. He simply just joined up with a militia group to take it upon themselves to defend businesses, vigilantism.
No one was deputized. There was no militia group. Have you ever been in a riot?
No-one was hired either. I have not been in a riot, I don't plan on going to find one so that I can participate in the violence either.
No one has to be hired. Just asked. I've been in several riots. There are not well organized.
He wasn't asked by the business owner either.
I dont think that matters.
It does matter since that's what he told police and that was his reason for supposedly traveling there.
What does that have to do with him shooting those people? Assuming youre right about him saying that, what difference does it make? All that matters is whats on the video.
Because you could now make the argument that his intent was not benevolent. If he lied about his reason for being there then what was the reason? A good lawyer can turn that lie into something pretty nefarious.
If he lied? What IF he wasn't lying?
You seem to twist facts to fit your premise. Oh, by the way, in our country, you're innocent until PROVEN guilty.
 

JordannaNY

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
89
Reaction score
36
Points
21
THe ow
He should have stayed home.

So should the antifa/blm joe biden voters who were burning, looting, beating and attacking people.........had they not been there they wouldn't have been shot.
It was not his responsibility to go there to provide justice.
That doesnt make it wrong or even a crime.
Vigilantism usually is a crime though. He and others went there to provide justice and protection without legal authorization and ultimately killed people by putting himself in a position where violence between him and others were inevitable.

Wrong.......he went there to stand guard over a business....and to render first aid. They attacked him...what about that isn't sinking in?

They chased him down, in all 3 shootings....what part of that is still not getting into your brain?
Stand guard over a business that wasn't his. Why that business? Render first aid? Why carry a rifle and not a medical kit? Was he there to fight or to render aid?
The owner of the business asked him to go and look after it. He did have a first aid kit. That's why he was wearing gloves.
A business owner can't effectively deputize a minor to defend his property with lethal force, plus the business owner (Car Source) has already said that they did not hire security. He simply just joined up with a militia group to take it upon themselves to defend businesses, vigilantism.
No one was deputized. There was no militia group. Have you ever been in a riot?
No-one was hired either. I have not been in a riot, I don't plan on going to find one so that I can participate in the violence either.
No one has to be hired. Just asked. I've been in several riots. There are not well organized.
He wasn't asked by the business owner either.
I dont think that matters.
It does matter since that's what he told police and that was his reason for supposedly traveling there.
What does that have to do with him shooting those people? Assuming youre right about him saying that, what difference does it make? All that matters is whats on the video.
Because you could now make the argument that his intent was not benevolent. If he lied about his reason for being there then what was the reason? A good lawyer can turn that lie into something pretty nefarious.
If he lied? What IF he wasn't lying?
You seem to twist facts to fit your premise. Oh, by the way, in our country, you're innocent until PROVEN guilty.
I'm not trying to twist the facts i'm just trying to show how his actions can be seen in a totally different way once he goes to trial. If he wasn't lying and events happened to where he was defending himself then hope that comes out in the trial too.
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
43,922
Reaction score
16,990
Points
2,250
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
THe ow
He should have stayed home.

So should the antifa/blm joe biden voters who were burning, looting, beating and attacking people.........had they not been there they wouldn't have been shot.
It was not his responsibility to go there to provide justice.
That doesnt make it wrong or even a crime.
Vigilantism usually is a crime though. He and others went there to provide justice and protection without legal authorization and ultimately killed people by putting himself in a position where violence between him and others were inevitable.

Wrong.......he went there to stand guard over a business....and to render first aid. They attacked him...what about that isn't sinking in?

They chased him down, in all 3 shootings....what part of that is still not getting into your brain?
Stand guard over a business that wasn't his. Why that business? Render first aid? Why carry a rifle and not a medical kit? Was he there to fight or to render aid?
The owner of the business asked him to go and look after it. He did have a first aid kit. That's why he was wearing gloves.
A business owner can't effectively deputize a minor to defend his property with lethal force, plus the business owner (Car Source) has already said that they did not hire security. He simply just joined up with a militia group to take it upon themselves to defend businesses, vigilantism.
No one was deputized. There was no militia group. Have you ever been in a riot?
No-one was hired either. I have not been in a riot, I don't plan on going to find one so that I can participate in the violence either.
No one has to be hired. Just asked. I've been in several riots. There are not well organized.
He wasn't asked by the business owner either.
I dont think that matters.
It does matter since that's what he told police and that was his reason for supposedly traveling there.
What does that have to do with him shooting those people? Assuming youre right about him saying that, what difference does it make? All that matters is whats on the video.
Because you could now make the argument that his intent was not benevolent. If he lied about his reason for being there then what was the reason? A good lawyer can turn that lie into something pretty nefarious.
If he lied? What IF he wasn't lying?
You seem to twist facts to fit your premise. Oh, by the way, in our country, you're innocent until PROVEN guilty.
I'm not trying to twist the facts i'm just trying to show how his actions can be seen in a totally different way once he goes to trial. If he wasn't lying and events happened to where he was defending himself then hope that comes out in the trial too.
If you get away from the actual facts, yes, things can get twisted up in a trial, huh?
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
45,414
Reaction score
17,884
Points
2,290
THe ow
He should have stayed home.

So should the antifa/blm joe biden voters who were burning, looting, beating and attacking people.........had they not been there they wouldn't have been shot.
It was not his responsibility to go there to provide justice.
That doesnt make it wrong or even a crime.
Vigilantism usually is a crime though. He and others went there to provide justice and protection without legal authorization and ultimately killed people by putting himself in a position where violence between him and others were inevitable.

Wrong.......he went there to stand guard over a business....and to render first aid. They attacked him...what about that isn't sinking in?

They chased him down, in all 3 shootings....what part of that is still not getting into your brain?
Stand guard over a business that wasn't his. Why that business? Render first aid? Why carry a rifle and not a medical kit? Was he there to fight or to render aid?
The owner of the business asked him to go and look after it. He did have a first aid kit. That's why he was wearing gloves.
A business owner can't effectively deputize a minor to defend his property with lethal force, plus the business owner (Car Source) has already said that they did not hire security. He simply just joined up with a militia group to take it upon themselves to defend businesses, vigilantism.
No one was deputized. There was no militia group. Have you ever been in a riot?
No-one was hired either. I have not been in a riot, I don't plan on going to find one so that I can participate in the violence either.
No one has to be hired. Just asked. I've been in several riots. There are not well organized.
He wasn't asked by the business owner either.
I dont think that matters.
It does matter since that's what he told police and that was his reason for supposedly traveling there.
What does that have to do with him shooting those people? Assuming youre right about him saying that, what difference does it make? All that matters is whats on the video.
Because you could now make the argument that his intent was not benevolent. If he lied about his reason for being there then what was the reason? A good lawyer can turn that lie into something pretty nefarious.
If he lied? What IF he wasn't lying?
You seem to twist facts to fit your premise. Oh, by the way, in our country, you're innocent until PROVEN guilty.
I'm not trying to twist the facts i'm just trying to show how his actions can be seen in a totally different way once he goes to trial. If he wasn't lying and events happened to where he was defending himself then hope that comes out in the trial too.
Every second of the incident was filmed. There was a witness, a journalist, who was present filming on his own the entire time. Very little of this incident is going to hinge on what Kyle Rittenhouse has to say.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top