Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

I have not seen a single piece of evidence in this trial so far that leads me to believe Kyle was out "looking for trouble"

Just the opposite actually. He was out seeing to give medical aid to anyone that needed it. He was attacked and defended himself.

The fact that he had a weapon does NOT = looking for trouble.
 
2aguy said:
He didn't confront anyone......in fact, they chased him. He was not an aggressor in any way......the three leftists attacked him.

He isn't guilty of manslaughter......they attacked him.

Did you listen to any of the actual testimony? They confronted him before the attacks...he went to put out fires and they charged him......

Had they left him alone, not tried to grab his rifle after chasing and cornering him, not hit him with a skateboard after chasing him, not pointed a pistol at him after chasing him.....he wouldn't have fired one shot.....

This is on them, not him.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. Again, a responsible weapons owner knows to avoid trouble whenever possible while armed. He did the opposite. He took a firearm illegally and confronted trouble. He deliberately put himself in a likely position of being attacked by somebody if not the entire mob. I don't call that self-defense, I call that looking to start a problem whether he was attacked first or he attacked first.

If there is a mob of people in front of my house fighting, and I go out with my gun and start shooting people, I'm going to be held responsible. I left the safety of my home and went out to confront people in a violent situation that was completely no business of mine.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Under the scenario you just painted he DID exercise his futy to retreat. The evidence also tells a different story. They began chasing him after he used an extinguisher to put out a fire.

Hde was in fact accosted and tried to retreat.

I can agree with the weapons charges but his shootings were all justified and should be regardless of what he came to Kenosha for.
Click to expand...

Nobody brings a rifle to go shopping. We know what he went there for. Duty to retreat means leave at the first sign of trouble. The trouble was already there and he inserted himself into the trouble.
 
The FBI was flying surveillance drones over the area. What? They had inside info and did nothing? Another example at how corrupt they are. A worthless agency.

dailycaller.com

REPORT: FBI Lost HD Rittenhouse Video, Never Told The Defense It Existed

Unseen footage allegedly taken by the FBI from the night of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting has surfaced during day two of his trial in Kenosha.
dailycaller.com dailycaller.com
 
eagle1462010 said:
The kid was Naive and stupid........the gov't supported these dang riots with Burn Loot and Murder crap. I remember he said he went there to protect business. Wasn't his job but he is Naive. In the end, HE WAS RUNNING AWAY to avoid the fight. And ONLY FIRED when he HAD NO CHOICE. The people after him were there to RIOT, burn and loot.

I don't give a damn that he shot that guy who chased him. That guy should have been HOME instead of burning down the city. So he got the Darwin award. Oh Well.

I'm sick and tired to the left doing violence EVERY DAMN ELECTION. And then saying look what you did. They use the media to ramp it up and cause violence everywhere by design.

I.m actually ticked off at Trump over this. When this began I would have called in the National Guard immediately with orders to END IT. NOW. This should have never been allowed to get as bad as it did.

Inaction by Gov't caused this. Political BS made the police STAND DOWN......and so people took matters into their own hand because the Gov't abandoned its DUTY.
Click to expand...

Agree that the kid was stupid, but so was everybody there. However it doesn't excuse his actions of killing other people. You can't shift the blame to the government. We know how communist cities operate, nor balme Trump because Trump offered help to every single city under distress which they all refused. Trump cannot bring in the national guard unless he has the cities permission.

The other thing that bothers me is what if the public starts supporting gun control and disarming the citizen in public? It's situations like this (if this kid gets off) that helps get people on their side. This little punk attended a riot armed and shot three people killing two of them, and he got away with it. When people hear or read of stories like this they take the stance our gun laws are way too liberal and need to be tightened up. I want more fence sitters on my side, not less. And as a CCW holder I strongly believe in the concept anybody with a deadly weapon should avoid having to use it at all costs.
 
Ray From Cleveland said:
Nobody brings a rifle to go shopping. We know what he went there for. Duty to retreat means leave at the first sign of trouble. The trouble was already there and he inserted himself into the trouble.
Click to expand...

Ray, I respect what you are saying. In fact, many fascits of our laws have similar reasoning...For instance, if you are being harrassed by someone over the phone, and you decide to go meet the threat, it is at that point when you leave your home, to go to the threat that you become the aggressor...So, I get what you are saying.

However, Kyle was, among others hired to protect a business in the area of the riots from being destroyed. So, can you show where he was antagonizing, or pursuing violence, or in fact doing anything other than what he was hired to do?
 
Ray From Cleveland said:
Agree that the kid was stupid, but so was everybody there. However it doesn't excuse his actions of killing other people. You can't shift the blame to the government. We know how communist cities operate, nor balme Trump because Trump offered help to every single city under distress which they all refused. Trump cannot bring in the national guard unless he has the cities permission.

The other thing that bothers me is what if the public starts supporting gun control and disarming the citizen in public? It's situations like this (if this kid gets off) that helps get people on their side. This little punk attended a riot armed and shot three people killing two of them, and he got away with it. When people hear or read of stories like this they take the stance our gun laws are way too liberal and need to be tightened up. I want more fence sitters on my side, not less. And as a CCW holder I strongly believe in the concept anybody with a deadly weapon should avoid having to use it at all costs.
Click to expand...
He defended himself. Why he was there is on him. But had he not had a gun that guy would have probably shot him stone cold dead.

No crime. And When riots get out of control under insurrection the President can call out the guard. He took an oath to protect the people of this country. When they are burning cities down he has that right............Let them argue about it in the Supreme Court.

Kent 1970 is an example. Hoover I think......Eisenhower did it. so I don't agree he doesn't have that authority.
 
Ray From Cleveland said:
Nobody brings a rifle to go shopping. We know what he went there for. Duty to retreat means leave at the first sign of trouble. The trouble was already there and he inserted himself into the trouble.
Click to expand...
We do not in fact know. You are making an assumption. What we do know is did many things inconsistent with looking for gtrouble although yes he was acting as a wanna be hero also. WHen the trouble came for him he did retreat. That much is proven.
 
eagle1462010 said:
He defended himself. Why he was there is on him. But had he not had a gun that guy would have probably shot him stone cold dead.

No crime. And When riots get out of control under insurrection the President can call out the guard. He took an oath to protect the people of this country. When they are burning cities down he has that right............Let them argue about it in the Supreme Court.

Kent 1970 is an example. Hoover I think......Eisenhower did it. so I don't agree he doesn't have that authority.
Click to expand...
Governors call out the national guard.
 
Ray From Cleveland said:
He went to a riot with a gun and he was not looking for trouble?
Click to expand...
If he didn't bring a gun being against Burn Loot Murder this thread would be the trial of the current dead guy and why you killed him.

Kyle is NAIVE and Stupid .......Most youth are today and so were we in our youth. But Kyle didn't have an intent to kill.............Having a loaded gun and RUNNING AWAY.........ISN'T INTENT.

Going there and just blowing them away is another story. That didn't happen.

The Gov't caused this by gal lighting the country with Burn Loot Murder as always
 
eagle1462010 said:
He defended himself. Why he was there is on him. But had he not had a gun that guy would have probably shot him stone cold dead.

No crime. And When riots get out of control under insurrection the President can call out the guard. He took an oath to protect the people of this country. When they are burning cities down he has that right............Let them argue about it in the Supreme Court.

Kent 1970 is an example. Hoover I think......Eisenhower did it. so I don't agree he doesn't have that authority.
Click to expand...

Trump can only send in federal troops using the Insurrection Act which hasn't been used in many years. Furthermore the Insurrection Act has many, many restrictions that didn't qualify Trump to use it. Outside of that, a President cannot send troops into a city that refuses help or doesn't ask for it.

Why Rittenhouse was there is very relevant. He went there looking for an altercation while illegally armed.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
We do not in fact know. You are making an assumption. What we do know is did many things inconsistent with looking for gtrouble although yes he was acting as a wanna be hero also. WHen the trouble came for him he did retreat. That much is proven.
Click to expand...

You can't retreat from trouble you deliberately put yourself into.
 
www.brennancenter.org

The Posse Comitatus Act Explained

The law generally prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org

What are the main statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act?​

There are many statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, but the most important one is the Insurrection Act. Under this law, in response to a state government’s request, the president may deploy the military to suppress an insurrection in that state. In addition, [B]the Insurrection Act allows the president — with or without the state government’s consent — to use the military to enforce federal law or suppress a rebellion against federal authority in a state, [/B]or to protect a group of people’s civil rights when the state government is unable or unwilling to do so.



There are ways around the Acts. It is a slippery slope. D.C isn't a State so Guard is Federal Authority. Trump was limited but could have used exceptions to the rule to end the madness.

98% of the fault belongs to the States that allowed this UNLAWFULLNESS.........What happened in Seattle was beyond BS.
 
Ray From Cleveland said:
Trump can only send in federal troops using the Insurrection Act which hasn't been used in many years. Furthermore the Insurrection Act has many, many restrictions that didn't qualify Trump to use it. Outside of that, a President cannot send troops into a city that refuses help or doesn't ask for it.

Why Rittenhouse was there is very relevant. He went there looking for an altercation while illegally armed.
Click to expand...
If he hadn't have been armed he would be dead right now. He went there because the gov't wasn't doing enough to stop the nonsense there. NAIVE but that shows NO INTENT whatsoever to kill.

If he had intent he was have just mowed them down. He ran away even though those chasing him had weapons.............Had they not chased him there would be no incident.

You want him to go to prison for manslaughter........as the Burn Loot and Murder Crowd got away with burning down the country. I don't agree.

The dead guy chose to chase someone with a gun. Kyle tried to not use force. The dead guy got the Darwin award. OH WELL.
 
eagle1462010 said:
If he hadn't have been armed he would be dead right now. He went there because the gov't wasn't doing enough to stop the nonsense there. NAIVE but that shows NO INTENT whatsoever to kill.

If he had intent he was have just mowed them down. He ran away even though those chasing him had weapons.............Had they not chased him there would be no incident.

You want him to go to prison for manslaughter........as the Burn Loot and Murder Crowd got away with burning down the country. I don't agree.

The dead guy chose to chase someone with a gun. Kyle tried to not use force. The dead guy got the Darwin award. OH WELL.
Click to expand...

The way you choose to not kill anybody with a gun is not putting yourself in a situation where you'd have to do it. When the Floyd riots took place, do you know how I avoided killing anybody with my gun? I didn't go to the riots downtown. I stayed home and let the police handle the situation.

Apparently the reason some did attack him is because he did have a gun and they were trying to disarm him. If he had no gun, they wouldn't have bothered him.

Manslaughter is when you kill somebody with no intent of killing them. For instance I'm at a bar and get into an argument with another guy. We both go outside to settle the score. In the process I kill the guy. I didn't agree to a physical fight to kill him, only to battle it out with him, but I killed him by accident anyway. I'm going to be held on charges of manslaughter and likely found guilty.

Now if I'm in a bar arguing with a guy, say I'm going home and he runs outside and attacks me, different situation. By fighting off his attack I am only defending myself even if I kill him.
 


It was used to end the riots 1992. U.S infantry and Marines along with all Federal Law Enforcement agencies.



better version
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Why is racketeering/extortion ok in the Biden administration DOJ & AG Garland?

< Previous Thread

Rittenhouse

Next Thread >

Similar threads

R
who is kylow rittenhouse
Replies
9
Views
242
TNHarley
TNHarley
Doc7505
“Listen Carefully it’s Actually Much Darker”: How the Left is Framing Free Speech as a Front for Fascism
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
703
Stryder50
S
Mr. Friscus
Congress grills Pete Hegseth
27 28 29
Replies
561
Views
4K
RetiredGySgt
RetiredGySgt
2aguy
Interesting point about Keanu Reeves vs. Kyle Rittenhouse....
Replies
11
Views
653
LibertyKid
L
berg80
The top 20 worst things the trump admin has done so far.
7 8 9
Replies
165
Views
1K
OhPleaseJustQuit
OhPleaseJustQuit

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom