Lead Prosecutor in Rittenhouse Political Prosecution Says Rittenhouse Chased His Antifa Attackers. Then He Shows Video Of Antifa Chasing Rittenhouse.

I think rittenhouse represents 150 million Americans who by that time were screaming at their tv sets demanding to know why democrats allow the nightly riots to continue

He used poor judgement to attend the riots where so many libs were running wild

but there is no evidence that he killed anyone who was not trying to kill him first

I agree all of this is accurate. The only thing I would like to find out more about is why they were trying to kill him first.
 
Huge difference. I was of the opinion that chorizo and eggs did not belong together, then I tried them and they are amazing. A person with their mind made up would never have tried them to start with.
We are all listening to the evidence too. The fact that we believe the shootings were justified, based on what we have seen (and not what CNN has told us), does not mean we cannot be persuaded otherwise. It's just that all we have heard from the haters is....

"he should never have been there. he is guilty."

"he brought a gun. that means he is a murderer."

and, your favorite

"he was only going there looking for trouble"

NONE of that shit is relevant to the MURDER charges.
 
I don't expect him to get off; I'm certain the jury has already been properly inundated with death threats against them and their relatives, same as with the Chauvin jurors.
Blacks aren't going to start their looting over a couple of white boys who even they thought were idiots, being wiggers.
 
I've been watching the trial.

The Prosecution is not a very good job of proving that Kyle did not act in self defense.
And the prosecutor may very well be a good lawyer. His case just fucking sucks.

Of course, that brings up the whole issue with prosecutorial discretion, but it seems to be somewhat one-sided lately.

See also, the St. Louis couple.
 
Huge difference. I was of the opinion that chorizo and eggs did not belong together, then I tried them and they are amazing. A person with their mind made up would never have tried them to start with.
About a previous post. I am offended that you were offended. It seem what is par for the course is tilted to your advantage. All the years of reading forums and the vitriol in them and what is on these boards. Suffice to say, Dem voters elect Progressives that have moved our nation far left. And the issue now is it is not moving fast enough. So prog politicians along with others who think the same way on school boards and a corrupted public school union has made conditions right to have what happened to a 12 year old girl in a bathroom and have the father arrested and roughed up for complaining about it. Tyranny is here in so many ways.
 
If I initiate contact with you and get you so mad that you come after me, it is really self-defense when I kill you?
I think this is the crux of the argument for cases like this.

In my opinion, the initial contact is allowed it to be just about anything short of physically striking or possibly threatening the other person. If the other person gets mad and attacks, then it’s considered self-defense when the instigator kills the other.

Like if I go up to you and call you ugly and you start chasing me and telling me you’re going to kick my ass, then I’m justified in pulling a gun out and shooting you while you’re chasing me.

There’s more nuance to it, but that’s basically how I generalize it.

What’s your opinion?
 
And the prosecutor may very well be a good lawyer. His case just fucking sucks.

Of course, that brings up the whole issue with prosecutorial discretion, but it seems to be somewhat one-sided lately.

See also, the St. Louis couple.
He has a difficult row to hoe.

There is overwhelming evidence that Kyle acted in self defense. Trying to prove Kyle didn't is difficult.

So far he has nothing. He is trying to prove that it wasn't a dangerous situation but he isn't doing a very good job because the witnesses are not backing him up.
 
I think this is the crux of the argument for cases like this.

In my opinion, the initial contact is allowed it to be just about anything short of physically striking or possibly threatening the other person. If the other person gets mad and attacks, then it’s considered self-defense when the instigator kills the other.

Like if I go up to you and call you ugly and you start chasing me and telling me you’re going to kick my ass, then I’m justified in pulling a gun out and shooting you while you’re chasing me.

There’s more nuance to it, but that’s basically how I generalize it.

What’s your opinion?
Name calling (including racial slurs) is not adequate provocation to eliminate a self-defense claim.

Threatening violence could be, depending on the circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. For example, if I sit calmly and say to you in a quiet voice that I am going to kill you, that's not likely going to be considered "provocative" but if I am up in your face yelling it, that might do be adequate provocation. But, after yelling it, I run away, and you keep pursuing me, that's a completely different situation.
 
The major mistake Kyle made that night appears to be getting separated from his buddy. Would Kyle have been attacked if his buddy was with him? Could the buddy have stopped the filthy ass pedo before the encounter became deadly?

Kyle's major failure was not being experienced in handling these type of situations, but how many of us are experienced in handling a violent psycho in a one on one engagement?

Kyle had excellent gun handling training. Shooting only immediate threats, and clearing a jam in a high stress situation. I'm not sure I could do what he did.

Kyle was very naive. Running around playing medic.

Being naive is not criminal and he did nothing wrong and these charges are bullshit.

Kyle's gun handling was almost perfect. No criticism of the young man other than getting into a bad situation trying to help but not understanding who the enemy was and how bad these BLM/ANTIFA/Communist assholes were.
 

Forum List

Back
Top