Kyle Rittenhouse is doing well

[Bob Blaylock]

Uh, no, shooting two unarmed people in self defense after YOU instigated the problem by showing up to a peaceful demonstration with a weapon is not "self-defense", dummy.

So, that's kind of relevant to his state of mind when he showed up to a race riot with a semi-automatic weapon.

Do you even try to keep your lies straight?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Do you even try to keep your lies straight?

Agreed. This asshole is just trolling and spamming at this point.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Uh, no, shooting two unarmed people in self defense after YOU instigated the problem by showing up to a peaceful demonstration with a weapon is not "self-defense", dummy.



It was completely relevant. If he was a racist bad apple looking for a fight, and he found one, that's pretty relevant.

There was plenty of evidence that was the case, and Judge Senile blocked it.

He did not instigate any thing.

It was not a peaceful demonstration

Those three criminals had no justification or right to attack him making it self defense

There was no such evidence and none was blocked

You are a racist liar

 

[BackAgain]

No it wasn’t. It was a case of a little boy going somewhere he never should have been so he could play “action hero” for one night. He didn’t expect to get himself in as far over his head as he did and that led to him doing something that he can never undo or make right; no matter what a jury says about it.

Wrong. He got in over his head when he got attacked. And the attackers had zero justification. He was allowed to defend himself.

Your analysis is false and, frankly, quite fully retarded.

 

[Flash]

Do you even try to keep your lies straight?

Joe-shit-for-brains is obsessed with hate for Kyle.

He hates that Kyle was not a BLM insurrectionists.

He hates that Kyle had an AR-15.

He hates that Kyle effectively dispatched three BLM insurrectionists.

He hates that Kyle was found not guilty of any crime.

Typical hate filled Moon Bat. He is beaucoup dinky dau.

 

[marvin martian]

Famous for killing.

In self defense, yes. Sadly, it's necessary sometimes in a world where people like you exist, as we saw during his trial and subsequent exoneration.

 

[Rigby5]

In self defense, yes. Sadly, it's necessary sometimes in a world where people like you exist, as we saw during his trial and subsequent exoneration.

The "self defense" laws do not allow for use of force after you have been involved in provoking any threat.
And clearly it is extremely provocative for a minor to illegally bring an AR to a valid political protest against an illegal cop shooting.

The "trial" obviously was bogus because the judge illegally dropped the charge of the minor being in possession of the firearm, when the law VERY clearly says that is illegal.

The people at the protest had a right to be Leary of a minor with a rifle.
After Rittenhouse fired so many shots, then it was perfectly normal for the armed MedTech, Grosskreutz to investigate what was an obvious threat.

Who would shoot a person in MedTech uniform, except a criminal?

 

[BackAgain]

The "self defense" laws so not allow for use of force after you have been involved in provoking any threat.

That’s not quite accurate. But even if it were totally accurate, in his case it is irrelevant. He didn’t provoke anything.

And clearly it is extremely provocative for a minor to illegally bring an AR to a valid political protest against an illegal cop shooting.

Not clear and not even remotely true.

The "trial" obviously was bogus because the judge illegally dropped the charge of the minor being in possession of the firearm, when the law VERY clearly says that is illegal.

Also not true. The trial judge didn’t make any “illegal” decision. And the law wasn’t very clear. That was part of the problem.

The people at the protest had a right to be Leary of a minor with a rifle.

So what?

After Rittenhouse fired so many shots, then it was perfectly normal for the armed MedTech, Grosskreutz to investigate what was an obvious threat.

Pure fiction.

Who would shoot a person in MedTech uniform, except a criminal?

Anyone if they were being shot at.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

The "self defense" laws do not allow for use of force after you have been involved in provoking any threat.

Having a weapon for your self-defense is not provocation.

And clearly it is extremely provocative for a minor to illegally bring an AR

It wasn’t illegal for him to carry that gun.

to a valid political protest

It wasn’t.

against an illegal cop shooting

It wasn’t. It was entirely appropriate.

The "trial" obviously was bogus because the judge illegally dropped the charge of the minor being in possession of the firearm, when the law VERY clearly says that is illegal.

You are ignorant of the law and incorrect. There was nothing illegal about Kyle carrying his gun that night.

The people at the protest had a right to be Leary of a minor with a rifle.

“A right to be leery.” What?
Okay, fine, taken literally, sure you have a right to be mindful and watchful about something you perceive wrongly or rightly as a threat. This doesn’t mean you get to attack them.

After Rittenhouse fired so many shots,

Appropriately, with good trigger discipline, neutralizing his attackers.

then it was perfectly normal for the armed MedTech, Grosskreutz

Grosskreutz by contrast was breaking the law by holding that handgun due to his record.

He tried to ambush and sneak attack Kyle with it - he was shot in the arm when he tried to do so. Grosskreutz should stand convicted for attempted murder, period. His was a cowardly and premeditated attack on an innocent and if he had died instead, that would have been preferable.


I am starting to think your account is broken and won’t let you submit a post that isn’t the opposite of the truth.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Short llst for the goofy leftist riding the short bus.

1. ''The term “victim” denotes a person’s legal status and defines the level and extent of participation that the individual is entitled to in the criminal case.''

Here in the land where goofy leftist's hurt feelings are the subject of pointing and laughing, we have jury trials to decide legal status.

2. Not in any way materially relevant to the case. Do you have any clue as to the actual charges against Rittenhouse? Obviously you don't. Do you have any clue as to how facts related to material circumstances of the case determine what is presented in court? Obviously you don't.

3. Nothing to do with the material facts of the case.

4. See 2. and 3. above.

5. "Nov 11, 2021 · After a chaotic day in court on Wednesday, the judge in Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial encouraged the courtroom, including the jury, to applaud for a defense witness because he was a veteran.''

''After.....''

Not a part of testimony.

6. See 4. above.

There's a reason why goofy leftists who know nothing of the legal process, you know, know nothing of the legal process.

What civil case? When was that filed?

The statute of limitations is gone now.

 

[Hollie]

Except this was very relevant.

Kyle hung out with racist Proud boys and was on tape wistfully wishing he could shoot a black man.

So, that's kind of relevant to his state of mind when he showed up to a race riot with a semi-automatic weapon.

Except that is completely irrelevant. Whether or not Rittenhouse "hung out" with a car full of Nuns or Proud Boys hs nothing to do with the facts of his attack by your leftist heroes.

I understand you're incensed that the legal system doesn't get trashed to accommodate your tender sensibilities and nonsense claims that irrelevant testimony must be allowed.... learn to cope.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The "self defense" laws do not allow for use of force after you have been involved in provoking any threat.
And clearly it is extremely provocative for a minor to illegally bring an AR to a valid political protest against an illegal cop shooting.

The "trial" obviously was bogus because the judge illegally dropped the charge of the minor being in possession of the firearm, when the law VERY clearly says that is illegal.

The people at the protest had a right to be Leary of a minor with a rifle.
After Rittenhouse fired so many shots, then it was perfectly normal for the armed MedTech, Grosskreutz to investigate what was an obvious threat.

Who would shoot a person in MedTech uniform, except a criminal?

It was a riot it was not a valid politicval protest.

They were the ones provoking violence not him and he had every right to be armed

The judge did not drop the charge you moron. The prosecutor dropped it

Med techs do not investigate threats/ That is not their job and it is not normal

Gross kreutz was not in uniform

Yiou are a liar

 

[JoeB131]

Except that is completely irrelevant. Whether or not Rittenhouse "hung out" with a car full of Nuns or Proud Boys hs nothing to do with the facts of his attack by your leftist heroes.

Nope, it shows intent. Criminal Intent is the key component to determining guilt.

Do you even try to keep your lies straight?

No contradiction, dummy. The point was, the ONLY people who died that night were killed by Rittenhouse. Otherwise, we'd have all forgotten there were race riots or peaceful demonstrations in Kenosha. They just weren't a big deal.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nope, it shows intent. Criminal Intent is the key component to determining guilt.



No contradiction, dummy. The point was, the ONLY people who died that night were killed by Rittenhouse. Otherwise, we'd have all forgotten there were race riots or peaceful demonstrations in Kenosha. They just weren't a big deal.

No it is not key determining guilt.

Evidence is

The three who attacked Rittenhouse showed criminal intent. He did not.

Yes you contradict yourslef all over the place. Your only real problem is that Rittenhous, unintentionally, distracted from the riots which were based on a lie.

His actions distracted from what the rioters were angry about and then the facts became public, The facts proved that the police shooting which triggered the riots was in fact a legal and righteous police shooting.

This is what pisses off the fools on the left. Not only does the evidence prove rRittenhouse innocent but the focus on Kenosha remained strong until the public learned that the BLM scum are a crowd of liars and pigs.

 

[JoeB131]

No it is not key determining guilt.

Evidence is

The three who attacked Rittenhouse showed criminal intent. He did not.

Well, no, one was a homeless person who was minding his own business and the other two tried to stop an active shooter.

es you contradict yourslef all over the place. Your only real problem is that Rittenhous, unintentionally, distracted from the riots which were based on a lie.

His actions distracted from what the rioters were angry about and then the facts became public, The facts proved that the police shooting which triggered the riots was in fact a legal and righteous police shooting.

You mean the prosecutor let this guy off the hook when he shouldn't have? Messed up.

This is what pisses off the fools on the left. Not only does the evidence prove rRittenhouse innocent but the focus on Kenosha remained strong until the public learned that the BLM scum are a crowd of liars and pigs.

Most sane and decent people look at Jacob Blake being shot in the back as being wrong.

 

[Hollie]

Nope, it shows intent. Criminal Intent is the key component to determining guilt.



No contradiction, dummy. The point was, the ONLY people who died that night were killed by Rittenhouse. Otherwise, we'd have all forgotten there were race riots or peaceful demonstrations in Kenosha. They just weren't a big deal.

Uh, your cartoon character attempts at legal arguments are obviously contradicted by jury system that found Rittenhouse not guilty.

The people who died or suffered injuries that night were the attackers.

You could always file a legal brief with the court to challenge the jury verdict. Just, you know, be brief and use your best legal arguments to include, “nuh uh” and “…. because I say so”.

 

[Hollie]

Well, no, one was a homeless person who was minding his own business and the other two tried to stop an active shooter.



You mean the prosecutor let this guy off the hook when he shouldn't have? Messed up.



Most sane and decent people look at Jacob Blake being shot in the back as being wrong.

Anyone else get a laugh regarding a leftist flamer complaining about a prosecutor “letting someone off the hook”?

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, your cartoon character attempts at legal arguments are obviously contradicted by jury system that found Rittenhouse not guilty.

The people who died or suffered injuries that night were the attackers.

You could always file a legal brief with the court to challenge the jury verdict. Just, you know, be brief and use your best legal arguments to include, “nuh uh” and “…. because I say so”.

Racist courts finding racists innocent is nothing new.

Just ask the people who murdered Emmet Till.

 

[gtopa1]

Really not my type. I'm into Asian chicks.

Mail order??

Greg

 

[Hollie]

Racist courts finding racists innocent is nothing new.

Just ask the people who murdered Emmet Till.

Racists finding a need to spend their existence playing the Racism Game™ is nothing new.

Just ask JoeB.