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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You are correct he will likely get away with it. And you are also correct that he had a right to be there. However, when carrying a firearm, you are limited in what you can do there. If he went unarmed, he could have done anything that made him happy.

 

[eagle1462010]

You are correct he will likely get away with it. And you are also correct that he had a right to be there. However, when carrying a firearm, you are limited in what you can do there. If he went unarmed, he could have done anything that made him happy.

Like Die.....lol

Had he put out that fire and not had a gun he would be dead. Case dismissed.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

I’m not all that new. I just recently returned. And if I wish to reiterate some points to stake out my own position, I will do so. They aren’t “concerns.” They were a recitation of simple basic premises from which a logical conclusion ought to flow. You may feel free to gloss over my posts.

 

[BackAgain]

You are correct he will likely get away with it. And you are also correct that he had a right to be there. However, when carrying a firearm, you are limited in what you can do there. If he went unarmed, he could have done anything that made him happy.

It may be that he shouldn’t have been armed. He may get convicted on that count. But in the absence of the police in a community engulfed in a riot, it may also be that he had a Constitutionally protected right to even BE armed. Not sure that’s been argued. Furthermore, he didn’t start the aggression. So I don’t believe he lost a right to self defense even if the jury says he broke the law by being armed.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Kyle had every right to be there as any of those other people. Those people had no right to assault him, period.

 

[braalian]

Kyle had every right to be there as any of those other people. Those people had no right to assault him, period.

Exactly. Isn’t wasn’t their property or anything, he had just as much right to be there as anyone else. And if they attacked him, then he had the right to shoot them. Seems cut and dry to me.

 

[Doc7505]

Maintaining order when disorder is required in order to address government crimes, is complicit with the government crimes.
For example, in 1776, the honorable people of this country committed the ultimate in rioting and disorder.
And those who would have instead tried to maintain peace and order in 1776, would be traitors.

~~~~~~
Hmm...., the Boston Tea Party was a prank when compared to 1789, when revolutionaries stormed and seized control of the medieval armory, fortress, and political prison known as the Bastille. Then again the events of Bloody Sunday in Russia in 1917 triggered nationwide protests and soldier mutinies. the cities throughout the U.S. with Antifa/BLM terrorism, violence, riots, arson, deaths of people, Now those were insurrections. What we saw on J6 was a protest gone a little raucous. The only person murdered was an unarmed woman by a trigger happy D.C. cop.
The Kenosha opportunistic terrorism and violence perpetrated by insurrectionist Antifa.
Meanwhile people of the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Left are trying to make Kyle Rittenhouse the poster boy of white supremacists which he is not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is about the prosecutor himself. He doesnt want to get blamed by the leftist cult mob if it goes to jury and they acquit. It is self preservation.

I suppose, but I'm also wondering how long he's going to keep his job after such a blatantly incompetent performance.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

It is amazing little 17 year old kyle did do a damn better job picking out the bad guys and shooting them (not everything else around them) than most cops do under the same circumstances. 3 righteous shooting all shots fired hitting their target. Cops often can't even get one righteous shooting target without missing a bunch of shots.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, I'm sorry, a law-abiding society does not involve allowing animals to rampage through the streets, burning and looting and destroying as they will, while the decent people hide in their homes or flee the city entirely . . . and file complaints and lawsuits and wait for election day. All of those things have their place and should be done, but reacting to a complete breakdown/abdication of the institutions authorized to uphold the rule of law by pretending that the rule of law is still in place is nonsensical. Also, stepping up to protect your community when those appointed to do so fail to is not "putting on your Rambo gear".

Furthermore, Kyle Rittenhouse IS a part of that commmunity, however much the media likes to gas away about their sudden, newfound concern over borders. As has been pointed out, he worked there and was friends with the people there. Hell, he lives closer to Kenosha than I do to the other side of Phoenix, the city I actually live in.

 

[Doc7505]

I suppose, but I'm also wondering how long he's going to keep his job after such a blatantly incompetent performance.

He or the other prosecutor will probably run for district attorney next election cycle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm sorry, but at this point all I'm hearing is you trying to split hairs and invent narrow definitions to cling to what you want to believe. How YOU define your community is irrelevant, because we're not talking about you or your community.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What I'm hearing you say now is your personal interpretation on the law. YOU have decided that what it means by "opportunity to retreat" is "did he walk away from the city when the riots started, did he avoid undoing the damage they did so that they wouldn't be provoked by seeing order restored", rather than "did he walk away from the personal, potentially violent confrontation." I would very much like to see some citations indicating that Wisconsin interprets that law the way you do.

Once again, I don't want to live in a neighborhood full of people like you, because it would look like Detroit and everyone's house would have to be an armed fortress, since your philosophy dictates that no one is allowed to care about and preserve anything they don't personally own. Tells me a lot that you're bragging about the fact that your city had a breakdown of law and order, and you proudly stood back and ignored it. First you tell us that Kyle shouldn't have given a damn about Kenosha, because he only worked there and so he wasn't part of the community, and now you tell us that you don't give a damn about a place that is your community by the definition you provided. Yeah, if you walked by me being mugged, you'd just keep walking because you "don't want to act like a cop".

 

[surada]

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.

How could you tell one out of state, armed vigilante from another?

 

[surada]

What I'm hearing you say now is your personal interpretation on the law. YOU have decided that what it means by "opportunity to retreat" is "did he walk away from the city when the riots started, did he avoid undoing the damage they did so that they wouldn't be provoked by seeing order restored", rather than "did he walk away from the personal, potentially violent confrontation." I would very much like to see some citations indicating that Wisconsin interprets that law the way you do.

Once again, I don't want to live in a neighborhood full of people like you, because it would look like Detroit and everyone's house would have to be an armed fortress, since your philosophy dictates that no one is allowed to care about and preserve anything they don't personally own. Tells me a lot that you're bragging about the fact that your city had a breakdown of law and order, and you proudly stood back and ignored it. First you tell us that Kyle shouldn't have given a damn about Kenosha, because he only worked there and so he wasn't part of the community, and now you tell us that you don't give a damn about a place that is your community by the definition you provided. Yeah, if you walked by me being mugged, you'd just keep walking because you "don't want to act like a cop".

Kenosha has a serious problem with their police force. They think like hard right militia......... The killing of Mr Black is unthinkable.

 

[surada]

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.

Rittenouse was an untrained moron living out his fantasy like George Zimmerman. Kenosha has a problem with their police shooting unarmed people in the back multiple times.

 

[Burgermeister]

He should be not guilty because of self-defense, and his parents should be prosecuted for whatever the law is about whatever they did with a minor and a gun. WTF? Retard parents.

 

[Stann]

Is it disgusting when the left lies to push their agenda.

Think about it. These disgusting pieces of shit would love to watch Kyle FRY to push their communist agenda.

Man fatally shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during Kenosha protests "was reaching" for teen's gun, witness says

The killing of Joseph Rosenbaum has emerged as one of the most crucial and disputed moments of the night.

www.cbsnews.com

Whatever happens, this idiot did this to himself. A child like him should have never had a gun in the first place. He probably has idiot parents too.

 

[Doc7505]

Whatever happens, this idiot did this to himself. A child like him should have never had a gun in the first place. He probably has idiot parents too.

Will you, Burgermeister and Surada be soon worshiping at the alters of Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz. Certainly these skags got what they deserved.
Rittenhouse was stalked by Rosenbaum and he died in a failed attack on Kyle. That has been well established by testimony and video. Huber struck Kyle twice with a skateboard and kicked him in the head. Testimonies and video all support that. Meanwhile actual pointed a Glock pistol at Rittenhouse.
He will be acquitted after this goes to the Jury. That is they haven't been tainted.

 

[surada]

Will you, Burgermeister and Surada be soon worshiping at the alters of Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz. Certainly these skags got what they deserved.
Rittenhouse was stalked by Rosenbaum and he died in a failed attack on Kyle. That has been well established by testimony and video. Huber struck Kyle twice with a skateboard and kicked him in the head. Testimonies and video all support that. Meanwhile actual pointed a Glock pistol at Rittenhouse.
He will be acquitted after this goes to the Jury. That is they haven't been tainted.

You're sick.