Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
If that was true, nobody would go to jail for murder. There are plenty of people who lose when they face a Jury, and this young man has to beat all 6 charges. Of course there may be more charges than just six. It will not be easy.

If the kid really believes he is innocent he should just have a trail with a judge. If he is smart he gets a lawyer that pleas the case to lesser charges.
What about it is not true?
One person on the jury must vote innocent on all charges, not just one. He will only walk on everything if that person calls bullshit, to use your term, on each individual charge.
 
The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.
He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?

Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.

People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.
"running into a peaceful riot"
"peaceful riot"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
yet, the post that states, he was simply, standing there, is not as funny, if you are to be honest with yourself?

I guess there is only one side that can falsely claim what happened. Of course, you called out the other post as not to be a hypocrite? Or you did not recognize the absurdity my post mocks. That rittenhouse was simply standing around and found himself in a life or death situation?
Kid shouldn't have been there, but that's not the same as having no right to be there. And it sure as hell doesn't mean he can't defend himself.



If a woman invites me into her bedroom and her husband violently objects, I still have a right to keep him from killing me for it, even though I never should have been there.
 
.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
If that was true, nobody would go to jail for murder. There are plenty of people who lose when they face a Jury, and this young man has to beat all 6 charges. Of course there may be more charges than just six. It will not be easy.

If the kid really believes he is innocent he should just have a trail with a judge. If he is smart he gets a lawyer that pleas the case to lesser charges.
What about it is not true?
One person on the jury must vote innocent on all charges, not just one. He will only walk on everything if that person calls bullshit, to use your term, on each individual charge.
And you don't think that's possible?

I think it's probable.
 
Yeah, I caught that. The pretzel logic these lefties have to do, to hold all their conflicting ideas in their heads at one time, is unbelievable.
Was he simply standing there? I guess you are using what you accuse others of, pretzel logic.

The headline, "he was simply standing there", there was no riot? He did not have an assault rifle, he was not breaking any curfew? Just standing?

In denial much?
 
Kyle's legal team sees this as classic self defense
Nothing the internet unlicensed lawyers have come up with is as reasonable

Of course it's self defense.:thup:

He'll be ok.
He's going to be traumatized, scarred, and disillusioned at a core level.
And his dreams of a career in LE are over.

Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.
 
How do arrest someone for self defense!? If we don’t get this child out of jail we are doing to let them
Arrest all of us! We need to fight back!

he willingly went to another state with a loaded weapon to hunt brown people.

guilty.

& his mama drove him.

guilty.
Now all you have to do is prove it, and feelz aren't proof.

he cannot claim self defense when he actively took a gun that he is not allowed to own because he is a minor - crime #1.

he actively crossed state lines with said gun - crime #2

he killed 2 people & maimed a 3rd - crimes #3, 4,& 5.
Neither you nor I are the lawyers involved. It will come out in court whether he can claim it and if it will be effective.
 
Yeah, I caught that. The pretzel logic these lefties have to do, to hold all their conflicting ideas in their heads at one time, is unbelievable.
Was he simply standing there? I guess you are using what you accuse others of, pretzel logic.

The headline, "he was simply standing there", there was no riot? He did not have an assault rifle, he was not breaking any curfew? Just standing?

In denial much?


He was not rioting. Indeed, supposedly these protests are "mostly peaceful".

Having an assault rifle is not a provocation. If anything, for the attackers to see the rifle and still attack indicates a very high level of commitment and seriousness in their attacking.


There is no pretzel to my logic nor am I in denial.
 
Kyle's legal team sees this as classic self defense
Nothing the internet unlicensed lawyers have come up with is as reasonable

Of course it's self defense.:thup:

He'll be ok.
He's going to be traumatized, scarred, and disillusioned at a core level.
And his dreams of a career in LE are over.

Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.
Nope. He's going to be just fine. He might develop a real hatred for democrats but that's all.
 
He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.
Illinois residents who are minors are not allowed to borrow assault rifles and confront rioters in Wisconsin. He created the situation where as he had to murder two people.
State the statute asswipe . I think the ten guy’s chasing him created the situation. How did you miss that? Hmm odd you didn’t even watch the videos
Electra believes there is some clause in the law that says you can possess a rifle only while hunting, however that is defined
Then the card should say that
 
Yeah, I caught that. The pretzel logic these lefties have to do, to hold all their conflicting ideas in their heads at one time, is unbelievable.
Was he simply standing there? I guess you are using what you accuse others of, pretzel logic.

The headline, "he was simply standing there", there was no riot? He did not have an assault rifle, he was not breaking any curfew? Just standing?

In denial much?


He was not rioting. Indeed, supposedly these protests are "mostly peaceful".

Having an assault rifle is not a provocation. If anything, for the attackers to see the rifle and still attack indicates a very high level of commitment and seriousness in their attacking.


There is no pretzel to my logic nor am I in denial.
The better question is, why does a sane human charge a dude with a AR15
 
State the statute asswipe . I think the ten guy’s chasing him created the situation. How did you miss that? Hmm odd you didn’t even watch the videos
gee, I only wipe my ass to get jc456 off of it, shit stinks.

You have proof I did not watch the videos?

When he left Illinois with the intent to obtain an assault rifle and confront the protestors in Wisconsin, that created situation. When you take an assault rifle to a fist fight you are a murderer. Nobody was armed in this situation except the person charged with murder. Sad as well, is that fact that Rittenhouse shot a man in the back. It will be hard to prove that it was not the shot in the back that killed the victim. How did you miss that.

The statue? Wisconsin statue 940.01  First-degree intentional homicide.
 
State the statute asswipe . I think the ten guy’s chasing him created the situation. How did you miss that? Hmm odd you didn’t even watch the videos
gee, I only wipe my ass to get jc456 off of it, shit stinks.

You have proof I did not watch the videos?

When he left Illinois with the intent to obtain an assault rifle and confront the protestors in Wisconsin, that created situation. When you take an assault rifle to a fist fight you are a murderer. Nobody was armed in this situation except the person charged with murder. Sad as well, is that fact that Rittenhouse shot a man in the back. It will be hard to prove that it was not the shot in the back that killed the victim. How did you miss that.

The statue? Wisconsin statue 940.01  First-degree intentional homicide.
That never happened. You need to educate yourself as to the facts instead of making them up as you go along.
 
Yeah, I caught that. The pretzel logic these lefties have to do, to hold all their conflicting ideas in their heads at one time, is unbelievable.
Was he simply standing there? I guess you are using what you accuse others of, pretzel logic.

The headline, "he was simply standing there", there was no riot? He did not have an assault rifle, he was not breaking any curfew? Just standing?

In denial much?


He was not rioting. Indeed, supposedly these protests are "mostly peaceful".

Having an assault rifle is not a provocation. If anything, for the attackers to see the rifle and still attack indicates a very high level of commitment and seriousness in their attacking.


There is no pretzel to my logic nor am I in denial.
The better question is, why does a sane human charge a dude with a AR15


I think part of it is, that they have been convinced by the support they have gotten from local governments, ie the dems in them, and the cops that are ordered to let them riot, and shit,


they have been convinced that they have the right to beat people up and that people know that they are required to take it like good little bitches, because if they don't, if they resist, the power of the State will land on them like the wrath of God.


Ritterhouse was young and naive enough to think that he lived in a civilized society where he had the right to self defense.
 
Kyle's legal team sees this as classic self defense
Nothing the internet unlicensed lawyers have come up with is as reasonable

Of course it's self defense.:thup:

He'll be ok.
He's going to be traumatized, scarred, and disillusioned at a core level.
And his dreams of a career in LE are over.

Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.
Nope. He's going to be just fine. He might develop a real hatred for democrats but that's all.
You ever been prosecuted to benefit someone's agenda, despite doing nothing wrong?
I have.


He's going to have a very different outlook on just about everything after this, and that's best case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top