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

[ColonelAngus]

Stupid lefties somehow think Trump is on trial.

It is so fucking bizarre.

You crazy fucks need a mandated TDS vaccine.

 

[westwall]

I don’t do your homework. And what the fuck kind of phone do you have that enables you to connect to this website but not to one which could prove your claims??

I can't do links.

 

[Rigby5]

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....

Once Rittenhouse caused the situation to occur, by bringing the deliberately provocative open carry, then he no longer had any self defense rights.
Legally anyone could have killed him in self defense, at any time.

How many demonstrations have you ever seen?
Has anyone ever brought a rifle to one?
The answer is no one has ever done this before.
That is because it is inherently illegal to bring an open carry to a demonstration.

 

[Billiejeens]

The Prosecution has made the Defense Case, pretty well.

A directed verdict seems in order.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

so you admit youre wont post a law because you dont understand them,,

so why are you wasting our time??

 

[progressive hunter]

Once Rittenhouse caused the situation to occur, by bringing the deliberately provocative open carry, then he no longer had any self defense rights.
Legally anyone could have killed him in self defense, at any time.

How many demonstrations have you ever seen?
Has anyone ever brought a rifle to one?
The answer is no one has ever done this before.
That is because it is inherently illegal to bring an open carry to a demonstration.

wrong again,, try reading the law instead of making shit up,,

 

[ColonelAngus]

The Prosecution has made the Defense Case, pretty well.

A directed verdict seems in order.

It seemed like every prosecution witness helped prove the case for the defense.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

neither was kyle,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So... you know nothing about the case.
Got it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

Wrong,

It does not matter why he was carrying it. You are assuming his motives. The fact is yes he was carrying it illegally but that does not justify attacking him. Rosenbaum was not engaged in self defense as he was chading and attacking Rittenhouse.

Big difference and once again you are wrong about the law.

It does nhot matter what Rosenvaum WOULD have done what matters is what he did and regardless of intent chasing and attacking and attempting to forceibly disarm rittenhouse was a lethal threat.

Those are legal facts and others were carrying and shooting guns as well. The only violation by Rittenhouse was to go armed which despite your stupud objection does NOT negate his right to self defense

 

[progressive hunter]

It seemed like every prosecution witness helped prove the case for the defense.

so far thats been the case,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

BOMBSHELL: Prosecution witness just admitted Rittenhouse fired at him in SELF DEFENSE – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

Taking Kyle's gun is called "disarming an armed suspect with an illegal weapon".

The fact the weapon was not illegal aside...
This only holds water if you know the weapon is illegal .
Prove this to be the case.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

He provoked no one
Running from his attackers to seeek police assistance is not a provocation and that is precisely what he did

 

[ColonelAngus]

Wrong,

It does not matter why he was carrying it. You are assuming his motives. The fact is yes he was carrying it illegally but that does not justify attacking him. Rosenbaum was not engaged in self defense as he was chading and attacking Rittenhouse.

Big difference and once again you are wrong about the law.

It does nhot matter what Rosenvaum WOULD have done what matters is what he did and regardless of intent chasing and attacking and attempting to forceibly disarm rittenhouse was a lethal threat.

Those are legal facts and others were carrying and shooting guns as well. The only violation by Rittenhouse was to go armed which despite your stupud objection does NOT negate his right to self defense

I love these armchair attorneys with no clue.

 

[maybelooking]

Stupid lefties somehow think Trump is on trial.

It is so fucking bizarre.

You crazy fucks need a mandated TDS vaccine.

Trump supported cops and law and order. The same thing Kyle supports.

So the leftist tools will automatically take the side of the criminal, looting, thugs.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Don't think so.
When provoking such a deadly threat, you do lose the right of self defense.

What facts are you relying on to support your "provocation" claim?

Every witness who has testified so far said that Rittenhouse never acted aggressively or threatened anyone.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Again, you take the position that the mere possession of a firearm is provocation.

EVERYBODY disagrees.

 

[maybelooking]

Again, you take the position that the mere possession of a firearm is provocation.

EVERYBODY disagrees.

remember, you're talking to people who think cops are out there every day trying to intimidate and provoke people.

Its nonsense of course.