Kyle Rittenhouse is doing well

[Billo_Really]

Not true.

We'll have to agree to disagree Valley Girl.

 

[Soupnazi630]

He was in public "armed".

Which in and of itself does not constitute an imminent threat

 

[Soupnazi630]

Liberals.

How do you establish this intent?

 

[Soupnazi630]

What's your definition of "real" evidence?

For the one the criminal records of the thugs he shot. Something you were ignorant of.

For another the videos which proved they attacked him first and which show him running to the police which you denied in other threads.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Listen junior, fo your homework before you decide to lock horns with the big boys.

Sorry boy but you are out of your league here

You have lost the argument by making up lies and ignoring facts'

 

[Soupnazi630]

That's debatable.

No it is not,

It is absolute fact

 

[AZrailwhale]

Rosenbaum was unarmed.. Just because Shooty McFlopsweat was scared isn't a good reason to go firing into a crowd.



And when Kyle has a lifetime of unemployment and being a social pariah, he can be proud that he murdered a homeless man half his size.


Yes, when a mostly white jury acquits a racist after a racist judge rigs the trial, that's a miscarriage of justice.
the DOJ should file new charges against Rittenhouse, but they won't because Biden is too conflict adverse.

UHHH, you might have forgotten that three of the four assailants were WHITE!!! The only one that wasn't didn't have a round fired at him. So stick your "RACISM" where the sun never shines and rotate on it.

 

[JoeB131]

Are you talking about that video

 

[JoeB131]

UHHH, you might have forgotten that three of the four assailants were WHITE!!! The only one that wasn't didn't have a round fired at him. So stick your "RACISM" where the sun never shines and rotate on it.

So he went there to shoot him some darkies, but all he found were white allies to shoot.

This makes it better, how, exactly?

 

[Soupnazi630]

So he went there to shoot him some darkies, but all he found were white allies to shoot.

This makes it better, how, exactly?

It disproves your claim that he went there to shoot black people or any one.

 

[JoeB131]

It disproves your claim that he went there to shoot black people or any one.

No.. try to follow here.

He was caught on tape saying he wished he could shoot a black man who was running out of a CVS.
He travelled 22 miles to a demonstration where they were protesting the shooting of a black man.
He shot a homeless person who scared him, and then shot his way out of a crowd trying to detain him.

Follow the fucking dots, stupid.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No.. try to follow here.

He was caught on tape saying he wished he could shoot a black man who was running out of a CVS.
He travelled 22 miles to a demonstration where they were protesting the shooting of a black man.
He shot a homeless person who scared him, and then shot his way out of a crowd trying to detain him.

Follow the fucking dots, stupid.

No he was not. No one has proven it was him on that tape nor did the speaker specificy that they wanted to shoot a BLACK person.

They were rioting not protesting and the shooting was justified

He shot a man who attempted to take his rifle which IS A LETHAL threat.

He only shot people attempting to kill him NOT detain him.

Your dots are out right lies you dishonest bastard

 

[Bob Blaylock]

He was in public "armed".

As is every American's right, under the Second Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No.. try to follow here.

He was caught on tape saying he wished he could shoot a black man who was running out of a CVS.
He travelled 22 miles to a demonstration where they were protesting the shooting of a black man.
He shot a homeless person who scared him, and then shot his way out of a crowd trying to detain him.

Follow the fucking dots, stupid.

If that is the video that you posted earlier, then bullshit.

Nobody can be heard clearly saying any such thing on that video. The audio quality is too poor to be evidence of anything that is claimed to have been said, or of who is claimed to have said it.

 

[JoeB131]

If that is the video that you posted earlier, then bullshit.

Nobody can be heard clearly saying any such thing on that video. The audio quality is too poor to be evidence of anything that is claimed to have been said, or of who is claimed to have said it.

Get your ears checked.. the audio is pretty clear, and no one has denied that it was Rittenhouse's voice... even Rittenhouse.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Get your ears checked.. the audio is pretty clear, and no one has denied that it was Rittenhouse's voice... even Rittenhouse.

The burden is on others to prove it was him.

The audio prves conclusively that you are a liar.

Who ever is on the recording never ONCE mentioned race

 

[JoeB131]

The burden is on others to prove it was him.

The audio prves conclusively that you are a liar.

Who ever is on the recording never ONCE mentioned race

No, it just said he wanted to gun down a guy for... um, being black at a CVS, I guess.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No, it just said he wanted to gun down a guy for... um, being black at a CVS, I guess.

You guess

That is why you are lying when you claim evidence was excluded. Your guess is not evidence you fucking idiot

 

[ChemEngineer]

Soup, please, he's not worth your time or anyone else's.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If it was irrelevant, why keep it out?



We didn't think a racist judge would tank the proceedings.

Because UNDER THE LAW, only information pertinent to a case is allowed to be presented by either the prosecution or the defense. Irreverent things are never allowed to be presented. To my mind some relevant things like criminal history of the defendant, are excluded except in some very rare cases when it’s used to establish a pattern of behavior,