Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The facts are that the protesters lived there and the one who you say wanted to try killing Rittenhouse watched him kill 2 people. Rittenhouse is the one who drove from out of town with an illegal weapon and was out past curfew.So if they sue his ass off and he never lands a decent job, then those suing his ass off SOL when it comes to getting any money.
BTW, I doubt those that sue him will win, the people he killed should not have went after him and like Rittenhouse, they all should not have been there. The third guy admits to trying to kill Rittenhouse, I doubt he makes a dime either.
Have you ever thought about being factual and less political about cases like this?
The guy turned around after Rittenhouse made the choice to defend himself. A split-second decision cannot be halted and Rittenhouse was under direct threat. You act as if under attack you can stop yourself in 1/100th of a second. He did NOT shoot someone running away.The film showed a guy running towards Rittenhouse who then turned around and shot him.
All the facts and evidence was not placed before them because the judge didn't allow some of the evidence.And yet ... a jury... with all the facts and evidence placed before them ... says otherwise.
Rittenhouse is the one who turned around on the video.The guy turned around after Rittenhouse made the choice to defend himself. A split-second decision cannot be halted and Rittenhouse was under direct threat. You act as if under attack you can stop yourself in 1/100th of a second. He did NOT shot someone running away.
The jury, which is the standard, disagrees with you.
He did NOT drive with an illegal weapon and he worked in that town and commuted. His father lived in that town. The gun was NOT transported there because the rifle was ALREADY in KenoshaThe facts are that the protesters lived there and the one who you say wanted to try killing Rittenhouse watched him kill 2 people. Rittenhouse is the one who drove from out of town with an illegal weapon and was out past curfew.
All the facts and evidence was not placed before them because the judge didn't allow some of the evidence.
No one should be at a riot, there is no expectation of being safe. The police weren't there to control anything, just dumb on everyone's part. Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as anyone else.The facts are that the protesters lived there and the one who you say wanted to try killing Rittenhouse watched him kill 2 people. Rittenhouse is the one who drove from out of town with an illegal weapon and was out past curfew.
Rittenhouse is the one that was being chased, hit with a skateboard, had a gun shoved into his face. Deal with it. He is acquitted and innocent.Rittenhouse is the one who turned around on the video.
Rittenhouse was the thug. He was not authorized to carry thhat gun, nor was he law enforcement. The car dealership he called himself defending did not want him there. Everything points to a young boy looking for trouble. He got away with 2 killings.What silly nonsense you spew. Those thugs were engaged in illegal activity, they were not victims. You folks act like petulant children, it's only justice if it goes your way. Pathetic.
First off Rittenhouse was not a citizen of that town, so he really didn't have to be there. Second, he was out past the legal hour kids of his age are allowed, so again, he should not have been there. Third, the weapon he had was illegal for someone his aged to have had. All of these things say that Rittenhose did not belong there.No one should be at a riot, there is no expectation of being safe. The police weren't there to control anything, just dumb on everyone's part. Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as anyone else.
And I'm sure you won't accept the verdict either. Your problem, though, is that if you try to do anything about it, you'll end up sitting in Rittenhouse's chair.
Actually, the law isn't clear on whether it was illegal for him to have, which is why the charge was thrown out.First off Rittenhouse was not a citizen of that town, so he really didn't have to be there. Second, he was out past the legal hour kids of his age are allowed, so again, he should not have been there. Third, the weapon he had was illegal for someone his aged to have had. All of these things say that Rittenhose did not belong there.
He was not assaulted.No, he can claim self defense and be exonerated because his assault was captured on video and his claim could not be denied.
The law was clear, the judged decided to treat an AR as a hunting gun.Actually, the law isn't clear on whether it was illegal for him to have, which is why the charge was thrown out.
Doesn't matter if a person is a citizen in another town, that does not strip you of rights and where you can and cannot be. If it is a public, the public, not just citizens have a right to be there. 2nd point, then he needs to be charged for violating a curfew, it has nothing to do with anything else. Smart people were not there, it was a riot, sane people get the hell away from such crap. As far as the weapons charge, they dropped it and it doesn't add to his guilt or innocence. Self defense was his defense and the jury agreed.First off Rittenhouse was not a citizen of that town, so he really didn't have to be there. Second, he was out past the legal hour kids of his age are allowed, so again, he should not have been there. Third, the weapon he had was illegal for someone his aged to have had. All of these things say that Rittenhose did not belong there.
It's because he's white, isn't it?I won't accept it. If i tried to do something about it, I would use the proper legal channels as well as applying appropriate public pressure. So I wouldn't be in any chair.
You disagree with the judge, I tend to believe the trained legal mind of the judge.The law was clear, the judged decided to treat an AR as a hunting gun.
It's not a miscarriage. The evidence doesn't support anything except a not guilty verdict. Every act was on video and every act was legitimate self defense.Justice was correct for Chauvin. This is a miscarriage. But it is how the system works.
Uh, yeah, he was.He was not assaulted.
My god, you actually get it. FINALLY. When you attack someone with the possibility of doing serious bodily injury or killing them they have the right to use any means at their disposal to defend themselves from you.If you throw a rock at a rightist, he can shoot you dead in self defense. But if you throw a rock at a leftist, he can shoot you dead too, in self defense.
There is precedence in American law!
