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

[Soupnazi630]

Repub support for a criminal is disturbing but not surprising…

Example of this support?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I only hope they are not trying to throw the case because they want the federal system to take over and prosecute.

I am curious about whether there is a double-jeopardy argument there.

Anybody know?

 

[Faun]

only by putting out the fires they set,,

and if you watched todays testimony you would have seen the prosecution witness said kyle never showed any aggression towards the protestors,,

so fuck off you ignorant canadian skank,,

The prosecution's already shown video of someone accusing Rittenhouse of showing aggression at protesters.

You're wrong as always.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I am curious about whether there is a double-jeopardy argument there.

Anybody know?

I don't know all the specifics. BUt I have seen many cases where double jeopardy does not apply when it is a seperate court such as federal vs state, or civil court vs criminal.

I have always disagreed with that interpretation but it is precedent.

 

[progressive hunter]

The prosecution's already shown video of someone accusing Rittenhouse of showing aggression at protesters.

You're wrong as always.

accusing him is not proof it happened,,

and beings it was rioters claiming it you know its BS,,

 

[Soupnazi630]

The prosecution's already shown video of someone accusing Rittenhouse of showing aggression at protesters.

You're wrong as always.

A video of someone making an accusation is not very good evidence.

Was the video taken during the riot? Made days later? Who made the video or filmed it?

 

[Faun]

I am curious about whether there is a double-jeopardy argument there.

Anybody know?

I don't believe the federal government has jurisdiction on this case; but even if they do, and even if they charged Rittenhouse with murder, that's still not double jeopardy.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Thanks for doing my work for me.
This proves that Rittenhouse is unable to use a self defense claim.
Rittenhouse was engaged in an extremely provocative act.

Provactive Act? WTH are you babbling about? You can't attack someone for doing something that you don't like..

 

[Turtlesoup]

Your reading of the law is far different than mine. Nothing that Rittenhouse did was legal, and he wasn't defending himself, he was being obnxiously aggressive with the demonstrators.

He running from them was an act of obnoxiously aggressiveness? WTF dragon?

 

[Rigby5]

Open carry of a rifle in Wisconsin is perfectly legal.

The mere possession of a firearm is NOT A PROVOCATION.

Only with the intent of hunting or going to a range.
It is not legal to openly carry a rifle in order to intimidate.
Those are "fighting words", and deserve a deadly response.

I have been to dozens of demonstrations, and never saw a rifle carried like this, (except Korean grocers on their own roof tops, in LA).
It was clearly illegal for Rittenhouse to deliberately try to provoke and intimidate with the open carry like this.
And again, Rosenbaum had more right to use deadly force than Rittenhouse, because Rittenhouse was the original violator.
We have no idea what Rosenbaum would have done with it.
Assuming a deadly intent by Rosenbaum is not legal.
We can assume Rittenhouse was the one with the deadly intent, since he brought it.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The prosecution's already shown video of someone accusing Rittenhouse of showing aggression at protesters.

You're wrong as always.

WE have the video of him running from the protestors......YOU are WRONG as always.

no way that assclown is interested in facts. just "feelings"

Think it is about political INSTIGATION.....its about making BLM and antifa FEEL that they are victims despite the Truth...which is why DRAGON and FAUN are repeating the exact same nonsense lies.

 

[Rigby5]

why do you never support your claims with a link to the laws you are quoting??

Laws are boring, hard to decipher, and deliberately long and cryptic.
And you don't have to.
It is actually the other way around.
The law does not establish the basic principle, but instead has to adhere to the basic principle we should all already know.
If the law does not, then it is the law that is wrongly written.

 

[ColonelAngus]

BREAKING: Gaige Grosskreutz admits he saw mob attacking Kyle Rittenhouse and approached him with his gun drawn

During Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial on Tuesday, one of the men whom he shot that night, allegedly in self-defense, testified that he approached Rittenhouse with his Glock handgun in his hand.

thepostmillennial.com

Gaige Grosskreutz admits he saw mob attacking Kyle Rittenhouse and approached him with his gun drawn​

OOPS!!

More FACTS fucking up the commie cuck LIES!

You lefty cucks are just the worst. Why do you hate the truth so much?

 

[Rigby5]

HE did however have the right to self defense.

Don't think so.
When provoking such a deadly threat, you do lose the right of self defense.
If he had been like a Korean grocer in LA, staying on private property, and not attempting to talk to people, that would have been ok.

 

[Rigby5]

Provactive Act? WTH are you babbling about? You can't attack someone for doing something that you don't like..

Carrying a rifle against a demonstration, is an obvious deadly threat.
Anyone there had the right to kill Rittenhouse.

 

[westwall]

He didn't have a right to be there armed.

Yeah, he did. Your thugs were armed so it is fully appropriate for him to be armed.

 

[westwall]

Don't think so.
When provoking such a deadly threat, you do lose the right of self defense.
If he had been like a Korean grocer in LA, staying on private property, and not attempting to talk to people, that would have been ok.

You don't think. That is clear.

 

[Rigby5]

BREAKING: Gaige Grosskreutz admits he saw mob attacking Kyle Rittenhouse and approached him with his gun drawn

During Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial on Tuesday, one of the men whom he shot that night, allegedly in self-defense, testified that he approached Rittenhouse with his Glock handgun in his hand.

thepostmillennial.com

Gaige Grosskreutz admits he saw mob attacking Kyle Rittenhouse and approached him with his gun drawn​

OOPS!!

More FACTS fucking up the commie cuck LIES!

You lefty cucks are just the worst. Why do you hate the truth so much?

A drawn handgun is no more provocative or illegal than Rittenhouse holding his rifle.
It did not give Rittenhouse justification for shooting, just as Grosskeutz did not have justification for shooting, so did NOT fire.
If anyone was trying to kill Rittenhouse, he would have been dead.
There frequently were as many people behind him as in front of him.

Face facts.
The open carry of the rifle was an incredibly illegal, provocative, intimidating, and dangerous thing to do.

 

[2aguy]

You can not fire at a physical threat, but only at a life threatening threat from an obvious lethal weapon, of which there was none.
Using a firearm on a physical threat is disproportionate and totally illegal.
The only people who can do that are women because they can claim they are being sexually assaulted.

And you are wrong.....you do not know self defense law. Grabbing for his rifle after
stating you are going ro kill him makes you a lethal threat.....please look at some
actual law on this....

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah, he did. Your thugs were armed so it is fully appropriate for him to be armed.

No one else was openly armed, and no one was going up to people with their arms and trying to intimidate them.
Open arms, especially a large capacity rifle, is deliberate intimidation and an unspoken deadly threat.