Kyle Rittenhouse sued by estate of Joseph Rosenbaum

It was a terrible decision. The defense found a legal pretext under which his plainly irrational possession was "justified".
And they were heard by an ammosexual judge.
You can whine about the court decision all you want and make wild, unsubstantiated claims about the judge and jury all day long and it simply doesn't matter. You're working off bias confirmation from a few headlines while they worked off the entirety of the evidence, the videos, and the testimony of first-hand witnesses. Quite frankly, I'll go with their opinion about what happened.
This little douche does not possess the mental capacity to be walking around with a tool SPECIFICALLY designed to tear people up. That he is considered some kind of model defies common sense.
He was there doing things to fix what the rioters were trying to destroy. Is that what has you so mad at him? Would you have been happy if he had cleaned up the graffiti, put out the fires, and just let them kill him, or would you have been happiest of all to have no opposition to the rioters, no one to clean up their mess and put out their fires?
No one will stop you from hiding behind that decision. But it doesn't make it sound policy.

Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that he be facing a civil action. I hope it strips him clean.
In all of this, I still do not see any condemnation from you for the rioters who had no business being there at all. It's as if you believe they had a right to violate the curfew, destroy property and attempt to kill Rittenhouse, and you want to condemn him for getting in the way. How stupid do you have to be to run after and attack someone armed with a rifle when he's fleeing the scene, clearly no threat to you?
 
I haven’t watched the videos since the trial, but if I remember correctly, all the shots happened in less than two seconds. That’s not enough time for someone to fall to the ground and them be deliberately be shot in the back. The shot in the back happened as he was falling forward.
Yes, and I believe they determined that in the trial.
 
You can whine about the court decision all you want and make wild, unsubstantiated claims about the judge and jury all day long and it simply doesn't matter. You're working off bias confirmation from a few headlines while they worked off the entirety of the evidence, the videos, and the testimony of first-hand witnesses. Quite frankly, I'll go with their opinion about what happened.

He was there doing things to fix what the rioters were trying to destroy. Is that what has you so mad at him? Would you have been happy if he had cleaned up the graffiti, put out the fires, and just let them kill him, or would you have been happiest of all to have no opposition to the rioters, no one to clean up their mess and put out their fires?

In all of this, I still do not see any condemnation from you for the rioters who had no business being there at all. It's as if you believe they had a right to violate the curfew, destroy property and attempt to kill Rittenhouse, and you want to condemn him for getting in the way. How stupid do you have to be to run after and attack someone armed with a rifle when he's fleeing the scene, clearly no threat to you?
The notion of that kid carrying an AR-15 into a riot doesn't pass a giggle test.

I'm not here condening the judge. He is clearly an ammosexual. His decision to thumb the scale is at issue.
 
The notion of that kid carrying an AR-15 into a riot doesn't pass a giggle test.

I'm not here condening the judge. He is clearly an ammosexual. His decision to thumb the scale is at issue.
The cops on the scene didn't have a problem with him carrying the gun in self-defense. The jury in the trial didn't have a problem with him carrying the gun in self-defense. The charge about possessing the gun was thrown out because the statute applied only to shorter weapons. I mean, you're stretching here to establish something that's already been fought over and found to not be an issue, and you're just applying labels in a vain attempt to minimize and ignore the reality.

Again, Rittenhouse was there cleaning up graffiti and putting out fires. Why do you give the rioters a pass on:

1. Crossing state lines to create mayhem where they did not belong?
2. Violating curfew?
3. Destroying private property?
4. Attacking Rittenhouse?
5. Taking weapons into the riot?

Is it because you agree with their ideology and think they should have had the freedom to do what they did without any interference?
 
The notion of that kid carrying an AR-15 into a riot doesn't pass a giggle test.

So then the notion of Grosskreutz carrying a firearm into a riot doesn't pass either, correct?
I'm not here condening the judge. He is clearly an ammosexual. His decision to thumb the scale is at issue.
The possession of the firearm was determined to be legal so it was not pertinent to the case.
 
The notion of that kid carrying an AR-15 into a riot doesn't pass a giggle test.

I'm not here condening the judge. He is clearly an ammosexual. His decision to thumb the scale is at issue.
He thumbed no scale he ran a fair and impartial trial.

the issue was never about carrying a weapoon it is about his actions with that weapon which were absolutely justified self defense
 
Why is the kid with the gun there, with his gun?
He was putting out fires for one thing. Earlier, he was cleaning up graffiti, unarmed BTW. Since, however, I am not a mind-reader, I would refer you to the trial for the answer to that question.
 
The cops on the scene didn't have a problem with him carrying the gun in self-defense. The jury in the trial didn't have a problem with him carrying the gun in self-defense. The charge about possessing the gun was thrown out because the statute applied only to shorter weapons. I mean, you're stretching here to establish something that's already been fought over and found to not be an issue, and you're just applying labels in a vain attempt to minimize and ignore the reality.

Again, Rittenhouse was there cleaning up graffiti and putting out fires. Why do you give the rioters a pass on:

1. Crossing state lines to create mayhem where they did not belong?
2. Violating curfew?
3. Destroying private property?
4. Attacking Rittenhouse?
5. Taking weapons into the riot?

Is it because you agree with their ideology and think they should have had the freedom to do what they did without any interference?
The cops on the scene didn't have a problem with him carrying the gun in self-defense

Irrelevant, and very regrettable.
 
So then the notion of Grosskreutz carrying a firearm into a riot doesn't pass either, correct?

The possession of the firearm was determined to be legal so it was not pertinent to the case.
So then the notion of Grosskreutz carrying a firearm into a riot doesn't pass either, correct?

Had he shot 3 people with it, I wouldn't be making excuses for him
 
He was putting out fires for one thing. Earlier, he was cleaning up graffiti, unarmed BTW. Since, however, I am not a mind-reader, I would refer you to the trial for the answer to that question.
He was putting out fires for one thing.
That requires water, not an AR....it's why you rarely see firemen running into burning homes packin' heat
 
That requires water, not an AR....it's why you rarely see firemen running into burning homes packin' heat
They do not typically face a rampaging mob out to destroy and kill and prevent them from putting out the fire when they do so, or they probably would start carrying.
 
Fetuses aren't people.
And if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant.
If we’re going to choose arbitrarily who shouldn’t be people, I wouldn’t choose helpless innocent kids, I’d choose evil fucks like you.

And ideally scum who want to kill kids would do so in an environment that makes it clear they don’t value their own lives, so they find their way to an execution or a hail of bullets.
 

Forum List

Back
Top