- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,441
- 67,782
- 2,635
Because of the serious nature of numerous threats and harassment directed at people involved in this case.Ahhhh.... and why was that, do you think?
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.
Because of the serious nature of numerous threats and harassment directed at people involved in this case.Ahhhh.... and why was that, do you think?
LOLOL
I believe you believe that.
Not true. If Kyle was home and a crazed lunatic broke into his house nobody would bat an eye at Kyle getting a gun and killing the intruder. People would agree that Kyle acted to defend himself. No problem.
But Kyle wasn’t at home. He wasn’t even in his state of Residence. He went looking for trouble. And he found it.
This is not the first time a child has been charged as an adult. It is not even the first time a gun was involved and the child was charged as an adult.
I would not want a child to spend his life in prison, for defending himself from a child molester.
You do.
Ok. Establish intent of this fellow to molest Rittenhouse.
You are missing teh point the other poster was making.
The argument is, that Rittenhouse lost the right of claiming self defense "because he was in the commission of a crime".
The "Crime" was being a "child", with a gun. The "crime" was only a crime, BECASUE he was a child.
Those same people then want to charge him as an adult, and face adult time, AFTER denying him his right to claim self defense BECASUE he was a child.
That is the point I was making a counter point to.
I mentioned that he was a child molester to show that he was a man that had a history of harming children. That does seem relevant, do you not think?
Ok. Tell me the last time you screamed that the defendant was just defending himself. Tell me about the 17 year old gang banger you defended claiming it was self defense when he shot another gang member from a rival gang.
Want to know why Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult? Because in the 1980’s and 1990’s the law and order types demanded it and said it would be a deterrent for juvenile crime. The fact that it hasn’t actually deterred anything is now irrelevant.
Laws were passed during the get tough on crime era. While it had been possible, it was hard to transfer a juvenile to criminal court as an adult before this. Afterwards any crime more serious than Jaywalking is potentially enough to treat the kids as adults.
The same people screaming shoot the protesters today were screaming Rey the kids as adults then.
The laws written to get those little miscreants off the street are now used regularly.
And Kyle has been caught by the net his own side set out to catch bad kids and punish them as a deterrent to other potential criminals. The side of law and order.
Many times I’ve written this. Before you plan on breaking out the bang stick you need a class so you can understand the rights and liberties you have. You need to talk to legal experts so you find out what the law actually says and what you can and cannot do.
Kyle watched TV. Kyle imagined himself saving the day like Stallone or whoever. Kyle had no clue that the real world was way different than Halo. Kyle also believed what many here do. If you show the mob a bang stick they will flee in terror.
They might. But they might not.
Kyle was and is a fool. He is going to prison because the fool did something foolish. And those who defend him are nearly as big in the fool category as Kyle is.
No. Not unless he was engaging in it again at that moment.
Irrelevant. The pedophile was trying to disarm a vigilante who was not handling his firearm very well. Being a pedophile had nothing to do with that as a) Rittenhouse didn't know he was a pedophile; and b) the pedophile didn't know Rittenhouse was 17.I would not want a child to spend his life in prison, for defending himself from a child molester.
You do.
Irrelevant. The pedophile was trying to disarm a vigilante who was not handling his firearm very well. Being a pedophile had nothing to do with that as a) Rittenhouse didn't know he was a pedophile; and b) the pedophile didn't know Rittenhouse was 17.
False, he was not handling his gun fine. An eye witness will be taking the stand to say he was not handling it well. A second witness says he saw Rittenhouse pointing his gun at protesters. You should try to stop lying to prop up your flailing position.Rittenhouse was handling his gun fine. Rittenhouse looked at the child molester and made the call that he was a dangerous and violent man. And ran from him.
The fact that Rittenhouse was proven right, should be considered in judging him and his actions.
False, he was not handling his gun fine. An eye witness will be taking the stand to say he was not handling it well. You should try to stop lying to prop up your flailing position.
You know the videos don't capture 100% of his presence, right?In the videos we've seen he was doing a fantastic job. Your "eye witness" I assume is an antifa rioter? HIs credibility should be about zero.
You know the videos don't capture 100% of his presence, right?
So you're saying that witness can't be trusted in the trial?But they do capture some of it, enough to give an idea of his general handling of his weapon.
If your eye witness is claiming something that conflicts with that, his credibility becomes very relevant.
Is he a member of the mob that attacked Rittenhouse?
I know. The prosecutors will focus first on what happened prior to it in order to explain what happened in it.No, I have been going off what I saw in the video
Really? The man has a history of committing violence on children, and you dont' think that is relevant to consider?
I respectfully disagree.
Rittenhouse was handling his gun fine. Rittenhouse looked at the child molester and made the call that he was a dangerous and violent man. And ran from him.
The fact that Rittenhouse was proven right, should be considered in judging him and his actions.
So you're saying that witness can't be trusted in the trial?