Kyl;e Rittenhouse will be a billionaire by the time his lawyers are done.

First of all, he was not attacked for being armed. Secondly, it is a post hoc fallacy to say that it wouldn’t have happened if he had not been there because it wouldn’t have happened if Rosenbaum hadn’t been there either.

While it’s true it wouldn’t have happened had he not been there, it’s also true that his being there was not the cause.

Wrong.
I never said it would not have happened if he had not been there.
I said that it was the deliberate intimidating presence of the rifle that caused the violence.
And your argument is obviously false because Rittenhouse did not just shoot Rosenbaum, but 3 people.
So obviously many were upset to see him carrying the rifle, and he likely carried the rifle deliberately to get as many people upset as possible.
 
Fascists are left wing. No government is right wing.

Wrong.
Fascism was defined by the ancient Romans, as a coalition of the wealthy elite, the military, royalty, and priesthood (which has changed to be corporate owners).
All dictatorships are right wing, with power coming from a centralized elite and the police and military used to suppress the common population.
Right wing is top down.
Left wing means a bottom up government instead, where the common population rules, instead of the wealthy elite.
 
1647104230320.png
 
Wrong.
I never said it would not have happened if he had not been there.
I said that it was the deliberate intimidating presence of the rifle that caused the violence.
And your argument is obviously false because Rittenhouse did not just shoot Rosenbaum, but 3 people.
So obviously many were upset to see him carrying the rifle, and he likely carried the rifle deliberately to get as many people upset as possible.


AR-15s are only "intimidating" to you pussy Moon Bats.

What was intimidating" was the crowd of BLM thugs that had been destroying the city.

Many of them were armed.

Notice anything interesting about this piece of shit that Kyle shot?

1647104407076.png
 
It is really mystifying how these idiots can still be arguing their nonsense so long after the case is over.

I had clients that did this. Long after their case had been decided they would call or write carefully detailing how they could not possibly lose. Reality just doesn't have a grip.
 
Corky, are you still here?



Oh, come on, just because a senile judge and an incompetent prosecutor failed at their jobs doesn't mean we all didn't see EXACTLY what we saw on that tape, this little punk shooting people in the street.
Aaaaand there it is, the classic Joe dodge. When facts contradict the narrative, just claim the facts are wrong. According to your own standard, you can't call him a murderer.
 
They just can't get over the fact that, no matter how much they want it otherwise, it's still a case of Kyle being justified. They think that because they want it a certain way, thus must it be. What spoiled fucking little selfish children.
And when presented with the reality that the case was decided in his favor, they just resort to calling the judge biased or incompetent (depending on whether it's Monday or Tuesday), and the jury is racist (because they insist on believing he was hunting black people). It's really dumb, but kind of fun to watch.
 
No Rigby is just another fascist moron who doesn't agree with self defense.
What a pathetic world it must be inside the heads of those who do not believe they have the right to defend themselves from someone who wants to kill them. I would think that they would do any intellectual gymnastic they had to do to right that perception. To do otherwise is to self destruct. Why do people want to destroy themselves?

This is just unnatural. What animal in nature simply lays down and surreneders when another animal is trying to kill and eat it? I've never killed a mammal, but I've also never met a fish that didn't put up a fight when I had it on my line.
 
Last edited:
And when presented with the reality that the case was decided in his favor, they just resort to calling the judge biased or incompetent (depending on whether it's Monday or Tuesday), and the jury is racist (because they insist on believing he was hunting black people). It's really dumb, but kind of fun to watch.
People who firmly believe they know more than the judge are always amusing.
 
However, a jury after listening to all the evidence, determined that Kyle was acting in self defense during a vicious attack by BLM asshole thugs. The same BLM type asshole thugs that had destroyed Kenosha with fires, looting and attacks on other citizens.

A jury, after being given confusing direction from a judge, said they couldn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A civil jury won't be nearly as confused when they soak him, and the shitty little town of Kenosha for all it has.

Aaaaand there it is, the classic Joe dodge. When facts contradict the narrative, just claim the facts are wrong. According to your own standard, you can't call him a murderer.

Corky, he murdered two people. We can call him a murderer.
 
A jury, after being given confusing direction from a judge, said they couldn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A civil jury won't be nearly as confused when they soak him, and the shitty little town of Kenosha for all it has.



Corky, he murdered two people. We can call him a murderer.




Not legally, dickhead.
 
He was Literally attacked for not conforming to the left wing ideology that guns are bad. That’s fascist

No, it not left or right wing that a person running around with a high capacity rifle in a city under curfew, is clear and present threat.
A high capacity rifle can only be intended to confront and harm a large number of people, and is not appropriate for defense.
For defense, a pistol is more than enough, and much more discrete, without the deliberate intimidation factor.
I have lots of guns and I go to lots of protest, but I would NEVER mix the two.
The are totally inappropriate to mix.
They are an attempt to deliberately frighten people out of their constitutional right to political protest.
No normal, sane, or rational person takes a rifle to a demonstration.
When the early citizens did a political protest where they would go so far as hanging a president in effigy, not a single person was ever armed except with torches and pitchforks.
 
No, it not left or right wing that a person running around with a high capacity rifle in a city under curfew, is clear and present threat.
A high capacity rifle can only be intended to confront and harm a large number of people, and is not appropriate for defense.
For defense, a pistol is more than enough, and much more discrete, without the deliberate intimidation factor.
I have lots of guns and I go to lots of protest, but I would NEVER mix the two.
The are totally inappropriate to mix.
They are an attempt to deliberately frighten people out of their constitutional right to political protest.
No normal, sane, or rational person takes a rifle to a demonstration.
When the early citizens did a political protest where they would go so far as hanging a president in effigy, not a single person was ever armed except with torches and pitchforks.
Don’t chase him you won’t get shot .. democrats took a chance abs lost, rot in hell pigs
 
It was properly legal under Wisconsin law for Kyle as a 17 year to have possession of that AR.

Absolutely not.
WI statutes are very clear.

{...
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
....}
 

Forum List

Back
Top