Kyle Rittenhouse Broke the Internet this Afternoon

Rittenhouse is getting sued by the owner of the car lot now for multiple reasons....
1: He was tresspassing on the property with a firearm and NEVER had permission to be there.

2: His action and false claims that the owner asked him to guard the property have damaged the owner business and reputation.
 
Rittenhouse is getting sued by the owner of the car lot now for multiple reasons....
1: He was tresspassing on the property with a firearm and NEVER had permission to be there.

2: His action and false claims that the owner asked him to guard the property have damaged the owner business and reputation.
No link?
 
Rittenhouse killed a stranger.
This just in. The stranger had tried to kill Rittenhouse.

In other breaking news, reports are coming in that President Lincoln has been assassinated.
 
Good thing that the mall shooter was killed in Indiana instead of Wisconsin....

In Wisconsin the hero would be jailed pending a 6 month trial where the DA would coerce any number of people to give false testimony.

Wisconsin still has the worst Justice system in America.....its a 5 time national embarrassment.
 
Rittenhouse didn't know anything about the man's past. He was just acting out his hero fantasy.
Or, to put it honestly, he was armed and acting out on the human instinct for self preservation.

But nobody expects much in the way of honesty from you or your ilk, Surquada.
 
Rittenhouse didn't know anything about the man's past. He was just acting out his hero fantasy.



No, he was defending his life. We KNOW that your hero, the child rapist, was trying to kill Kyle.

Everyone with a brain knows this. YOU seem to think that it is ok for child rapists to try and kill 17 year olds.

Normal people don't.
 
The jury found the first action was appropriate self defense given the facts they had available.
 
Yeah but what would a jury of one’s peers think when armed with the evidence?
Apologies can you clarify.
To clarify on my own I meant to say that, in all cases, jurors here a defined portion of the evidence that meets court and legal permitted requirements, not that there was something sinister occurring.
 
Apologies can you clarify.
To clarify on my own I meant to say that, in all cases, jurors here a defined portion of the evidence that meets court and legal permitted requirements, not that there was something sinister occurring.
Sure. I was being sardonic. My actual post (albeit an apparent failure of clarity) was intended to buttress your prior post.

The jurors had gotten the evidence — as their verdict properly reflects.
 

Forum List

Back
Top