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

[progressive hunter]

I did about a dozen times, but some people block out what they don't want to see, and I am not wasting time retyping them over and over again. Flip back to page 27 post 536. Next time you ask that question again, all you have to do is go back to that post instead.

nothing youve posted has to do with this event,,

you said kyle was taking the law into his own hands but never said what law he was enforcing,,
you also said the law requires us to move along when trouble happens and havent said what law that is either,,

you also said the law dictates what we can do when we are armed and yet again you didnt say what laws those are,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The only thing I can think of he's a really bad lawyer or he's deliberately trying to throw the case for some reason.

he isnt throwing anything,, hes just losing,,

 

[theHawk]

Where's your proof they were violent protestors? The kid was played by violent rhetoric and traveled from another state to a protest with a rifle.

Hey moron, most of the rioters travelled from out of state. Since when can you not travel to another state? He never took the rifle across state lines, it was already there and provided to him.

The proof of violent protesters? It’s all over the videos. It was a declared riot zone where police and paramedics would not go into. They were setting fires, destroying property. That is violence. They were attempting to blow up a gas station. They were violent protesters, aka rioters. Rosenbaum verbally threatened Rittenhouse and other individuals. He threatened to kill them. The other people physically attacked Kyle as he was running away.

You’re a liar and a coward for suggesting otherwise. All the videos have proven this and they have been available for over a year.

 

[theHawk]

he isnt throwing anything,, hes just losing,,

He is trying to get a mistrial so they can do another trial, because he fucked up this one so bad.

 

[jc456]

Police don't make the decision of backing down or charging a situation. That's done by the chief and politicians usually telling them what to do. If a city allows riots to go uninterrupted, you take that up with them, not put on your Rambo gear to show them you can do it better. Rittenhouse had no business there anyway. He didn't even live in the state yet alone the city.

Naw, a cop is human, to see damage to their city should have meant something to get involved and fk the chief. That’s what Kyle showed them. Care

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ah, so you DO think he - and, by extension, other law-abiding folks - should simply abandon their communities to thugs whenever said garbage decides to get violent and destructive.

I dispute your idea that he "had no connection" to the property. While he didn't live in Kenosha, he lived very close and he worked there and he knew those people. He was part of that community. I don't think I would want to live in a neighborhood where everyone thought like you.

On a side note, I believe he does have some training in first aid, which is rather more than "putting band-aids on people". Hell, I got enough first aid training to be useful in that situation simply to work in the reception area of a doctor's office. It's not exactly difficult to get.

He knew CPR because he's a lifeguard. That's about it. Unless you're in a class where everybody has to demonstrate they know what you're talking about, CPR can be taught in 15 minutes. He was not part of that community in a living sense. Knowing people there does not make you part of that community. Residing there makes you part of that community. Having a business there makes you part of that community. Being a politician there makes you part of that community, but not knowing people. I know people in several suburbs in my area. I am not part of any of their communities for that reason.

 

[progressive hunter]

He knew CPR because he's a lifeguard. That's about it. Unless you're in a class where everybody has to demonstrate they know what you're talking about, CPR can be taught in 15 minutes. He was not part of that community in a living sense. Knowing people there does not make you part of that community. Residing there makes you part of that community. Having a business there makes you part of that community. Being a politician there makes you part of that community, but not knowing people. I know people in several suburbs in my area. I am not part of any of their communities for that reason.

you really should have watched the court case so you wouldnt make ignorant comments like this one,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Naw, a cop is human, to see damage to their city should have meant something to get involved and fk the chief. That’s what Kyle showed them. Care

What would happen to you if you disobeyed the orders of your supervisor at work? Cops are just working people like anybody else. They have bosses, their bosses have bosses and so on.

 

[eagle1462010]

What would happen to you if you disobeyed the orders of your supervisor at work? Cops are just working people like anybody else. They have bosses, their bosses have bosses and so on.

Police and Military swear an oath. Did you raise your right hand and swear an oath to your boss in the civilian world.?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

nothing youve posted has to do with this event,,

you said kyle was taking the law into his own hands but never said what law he was enforcing,,
you also said the law requires us to move along when trouble happens and havent said what law that is either,,

you also said the law dictates what we can do when we are armed and yet again you didnt say what laws those are,,

I gave you the page, I gave you the post. If you want to discuss anything I posted, that's fine. But asking me to retype several paragraphs every time you ask is too time consuming and obviously by your repeated question, wouldn't do any good anyway.

 

[progressive hunter]

I gave you the page, I gave you the post. If you want to discuss anything I posted, that's fine. But asking me to retype several paragraphs every time you ask is too time consuming and obviously by your repeated question, wouldn't do any good anyway.

I did go back and read it,, and none of it proved your claims,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Police and Military swear an oath. Did you raise your right hand and swear an oath to your boss in the civilian world.?

There is no violation of oath by obeying commands.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I did go back and read it,, and none of it proved your claims,,

Geeze, it took long enough, but I think we're finally getting somewhere.

While Wisconsin doesn’t impose a duty to retreat, juries are still allowed to consider whether a defendant had an opportunity to retreat to determine whether or not it was necessary to use deadly force in self-defense.

So first question: Did Rittenhouse have the opportunity to retreat when they were damaging buildings? Did he have the opportunity to retreat when they set a dumpster on fire? If you were there instead of Rittenhouse, would you swear on the Holy Bible there was nothing you could have done watching this that would have avoided a violent confrontation forcing you to use deadly force? When he went there and the riot was already going on, did he have the opportunity to retreat before he even got out of the car?

Second question from my links: However, if an individual provokes a confrontation, he/she has a duty to retreat. Self-defense can only be applied if he/she reasonably believes all means to escape from or otherwise avoid great bodily injury or death has been exhausted.

He did not provoke the rioters by cleaning up their graffiti? He did not provoke the rioters by putting out the fires they set? He did not provoke the rioters by trying to protect a car lot? The law apparently is HE DID have the duty to retreat since he provoked their actions. Because he didn't, he was not covered under self-defense laws in using a deadly weapon.

Now, if you are going to tell me he had no idea he was provoking these people, or had no opportunity to prevent putting himself in that situation forcing him to use deadly force, then I would say you're not that bright. Because if I were in that situation, I would have known how not to piss these people off. If I were in that situation, as soon as I seen trouble anywhere near me, I would have started my car and drove the hell out of there.

We had riots in downtown here as well. I didn't go near there so as not to put myself in the position of having to use deadly force. I told my then employer I refuse to take any deliveries or pickups downtown even though I was not allowed to be armed at work. I don't live in another state, I can get to downtown in about 15 minutes. I am part of this community because I live here, worked here, and pay a ton of taxes here. But I'm not going to act like a cop.

 

[eagle1462010]

Geeze, it took long enough, but I think we're finally getting somewhere.

While Wisconsin doesn’t impose a duty to retreat, juries are still allowed to consider whether a defendant had an opportunity to retreat to determine whether or not it was necessary to use deadly force in self-defense.

So first question: Did Rittenhouse have the opportunity to retreat when they were damaging buildings? Did he have the opportunity to retreat when they set a dumpster on fire? If you were there instead of Rittenhouse, would you swear on the Holy Bible there was nothing you could have done watching this that would have avoided a violent confrontation forcing you to use deadly force? When he went there and the riot was already going on, did he have the opportunity to retreat before he even got out of the car?

Second question from my links: However, if an individual provokes a confrontation, he/she has a duty to retreat. Self-defense can only be applied if he/she reasonably believes all means to escape from or otherwise avoid great bodily injury or death has been exhausted.

He did not provoke the rioters by cleaning up their graffiti? He did not provoke the rioters by putting out the fires they set? He did not provoke the rioters by trying to protect a car lot? The law apparently is HE DID have the duty to retreat since he provoked their actions. Because he didn't, he was not covered under self-defense laws in using a deadly weapon.

Now, if you are going to tell me he had no idea he was provoking these people, or had no opportunity to prevent putting himself in that situation forcing him to use deadly force, then I would say you're not that bright. Because if I were in that situation, I would have known how not to piss these people off. If I were in that situation, as soon as I seen trouble anywhere near me, I would have started my car and drove the hell out of there.

We had riots in downtown here as well. I didn't go near there so as not to put myself in the position of having to use deadly force. I told my then employer I refuse to take any deliveries or pickups downtown even though I was not allowed to be armed at work. I don't live in another state, I can get to downtown in about 15 minutes. I am part of this community because I live here, work here, and pay a ton of taxes here. But I'm not going to act like a cop.

Kicked in the head after running away. Hit in the head with a skate board twice and a guy pointing a gun at you........That is pretty much exhausted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Kicked in the head after running away. Hit in the head with a skate board twice and a guy pointing a gun at you........That is pretty much exhausted.

Irrelevant because as I said, he had the ability to not be in that situation in the first place. You're talking about what he did after he put himself in that position. I'm telling you that he did not follow the law that would have prevented him from those threats in the first place. Because he didn't, this is why I believe he should be considered for manslaughter charges. He didn't do everything earthly possible to avoid that circumstance. Had he done that, he'd be back in his mothers basement playing video games now.

 

[eagle1462010]

Irrelevant because as I said, he had the ability to not be in that situation in the first place. You're talking about what he did after he put himself in that position. I'm telling you that he did not follow the law that would have prevented him from those threats in the first place. Because he didn't, this is why I believe he should be considered for manslaughter charges. He didn't do everything earthly possible to avoid that circumstance. Had he done that, he'd be back in his mothers basement playing video games now.

He had every right to be there in a public place. Same as all the others there. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

They chose to attack him. He defended himself ..........end of story. He will not be convicted of Murder ......ludicrous.......or manslaughter.

 

[braalian]

Irrelevant because as I said, he had the ability to not be in that situation in the first place. You're talking about what he did after he put himself in that position. I'm telling you that he did not follow the law that would have prevented him from those threats in the first place. Because he didn't, this is why I believe he should be considered for manslaughter charges. He didn't do everything earthly possible to avoid that circumstance. Had he done that, he'd be back in his mothers basement playing video games now.

Don’t get your point.

By that logic couldn’t you say almost *anyone* who kills in self defense is guilty because they “could have avoided it by just staying home”?

 

[BackAgain]

Rittenhouse had every right to be where he was. And given the vacuum in policing and firefighters and EMTS he also had a right to help protect his community. He had more of a right to be there and try to put out literal dumpster fires than the rioters had to be there setting the fires. And while legally there, he got attacked. He had a right to use reasonable force to defend himself. Even deadly force, arguably, under those absurd circumstances. Also, the prosecutor was atrocious. Anything could still happen. But I’m guessing it will be not guilty on all charges EXCEPT for the weapons charge.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rittenhouse had every right to be where he was. And given the vacuum in policing and firefighters and EMTS he also had a right to help protect his community. He had more of a right to be there and try to put out literal dumpster fires than the rioters had to be there setting the fires. And while legally there, he got attacked. He had a right to use reasonable force to defend himself. Even deadly force, arguably, under those absurd circumstances. Also, the prosecutor was atrocious. Anything could still happen. But I’m guessing it will be not guilty on all charges EXCEPT for the weapons charge.

I understand you're a newbie, but just some advice here: Read several pages of a post before responding. All your concerns have been addressed repeatedly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don’t get your point.

By that logic couldn’t you say almost *anyone* who kills in self defense is guilty because they “could have avoided it by just staying home”?

Apples and oranges. He could have just stayed home instead of deliberately going into a violent situation. If I go out to get a gallon of milk tonight, I'm not entering a violent situation at the convenient store. If there is a riot I am fully aware of happening at that store, then yes, I stay home so I don't have to shoot anybody.