Probably time for a Kyle Rittenhouse thread.

[hobart]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't get mad at the protesters for BEING THERE in the first place, burning shit down, for some retarded bullshit reason

See, that's what you Trumptards don't get. Normal people are mad at that too. It's possible to have two thoughts in your head at the same time.

You're ok with a 17 year old psycho instigating violence because he was owning Libs.

It's not like he took a gun to the capital to defend it and shot a couple of your political brethren. You'd haven been outraged and he would have never gone in the first place.

[Trexller]

ok normal guy, that 17 y/o hero didn't instigate violence, he responded to it after actively trying to avoid it. He didn't chase people down, they chased him down.

No trumptards took guns to the capital and shot "a couple of your political brethren" that was just one scared cop.

so really, if we're trumptards, what does that make you, just a normaltard?

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Convict [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you're analogy doesnt fit kid, because in this case the attackers DID have guns and wepaons. It was his life or theirs. Also they were starting fires and destroying businesses which is endangerment to the community, your weak ass analogy of tagging cars with graffiti does not fit here. There is also no evidence that Kyle provoked anybody. The only video evidence that exists shows them chasing him with weapons. From a jurors point of view this is clear self defense sorry bud you are just plain wrong.

1. The first victim had no weapon. And died with no weapon on him.

2. Whether they or I are endangering community property that is not mine or his property, is not a valid claim for protection of said property. And certainly not justification of vigilante murder in a place only allowable to law enforcement.

3. Kyle put out fires and even followed protestors. This was more than enough for provocation. (This does not including the 6 other pieces of evidence bring into question whether the gun was aimed at the victims before the ordeal.)

You have NOT proven a thing.

It is still a vigilante murder in a place the defendant has no place being.

[Elizondo]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

3. Kyle put out fires and even followed protestors. This was more than enough for provocation.

wtf.jpg

[Castle2.0]

Where's the part where Kyle advanced on the 'victims' to kill them?

Wait, they threatened him, they chased him, hit him in the head with a skateboard, pointed a gun at him, lunged at him, grabbed his gun, with a large mob... as he retreated.

Seriously, are you brain dead?

Open. Shut. Self-defense.

The only victim in this case is Kyle.

He should sue the State for bringing such a case so hastily and without any serious proof that would lead to "beyond a reasonable doubt"

He should sue the "bicep vaporized" loser for assault once he is vindicated as having acted in self-defense.

He should look into suing CNN and other media sources. The last time CNN lied about an 'unruly mob' (not an actual one) they lost a $275M defamation case. Round 2?

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. The first victim had no weapon. And died with no weapon on him.

2. Whether they or I are endangering community property that is not mine or his property, is not a valid claim for protection of said property. And certainly not justification of vigilante murder in a place only allowable to law enforcement.

3. Kyle put out fires and even followed protestors. This was more than enough for provocation. (This does not including the 6 other pieces of evidence bring into question whether the gun was aimed at the victims before the ordeal.)

You have NOT proven a thing.

It is still a vigilante murder in a place the defendant has no place being.

interpretation of wisconsin law isn't your strong suit, is it?

if Kyle had been one of the mob burning down kenosha, in your mind he'd have had "Every Right To Be There, It's His First Amendment Right" then you'd have been trying to find him on grinder, only to be disappointed, however i get the impression that feeling is a close friend of yours.

[Castle2.0]

Originally Posted by Bot

Kyle put out fires... This was more than enough for provocation.

I missed this. Thank you for answering my question whether or not you are brain dead.

[Castle2.0]

Imagine Kyle is liberal and black. Now imagine all the protestors are white in a black neighborhood.

Does the CNN/ABC coverage do an immediate 180?

This is why morally bankrupt partisan hacks who purely seek political power will become less and less relevant.

Social media is eating MSM. It will continue, even as the left seeks to limit free speech and regulate (read: control) social media where conservatives do much better.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where's the part where Kyle advanced on the 'victims' to kill them?

Wait, they threatened him, they chased him, hit him in the head with a skateboard, pointed a gun at him, lunged at him, grabbed his gun, with a large mob... as he retreated.

Seriously, are you brain dead?

Open. Shut. Self-defense.

The only victim in this case is Kyle.

He should sue the State for bringing such a case so hastily and without any serious proof that would lead to "beyond a reasonable doubt"

He should sue the "bicep vaporized" loser for assault once he is vindicated as having acted in self-defense.

He should look into suing CNN and other media sources. The last time CNN lied about an 'unruly mob' (not an actual one) they lost a $275M defamation case. Round 2?

Regardless of what Cletus (Elizundo) thinks

I said while the weapon was drawn the first victim without a weapon charged and died. This is a not proper stand your ground or proper self defense excuse to shot the victim 4 times and kill him.

This is still a vigilante murder in a place only law enforcement should be in.

[Castle2.0]

Originally Posted by Bot

This is a not proper stand your ground or proper self defense excuse to shot the victim 4 times and kill him.

OHHHH, I forgot, all of your gun knowledge comes from lib journos who never held a gun, and Hollywood where the guns aren't real unless you are Alec Baldwin.

You're right, he should have shot him 2cm above the knee, and 3cm to the right of the femur to subdue him, doing the least amount of damage. We've seen the movies. Only takes 1 shot.

Narrator: And this is an actual stupid lib argument against "too many" shots from police on meth heads with guns and knives about to kill people....

You are in fact brain dead. Are you aware of this?

Do you know how long it took to shoot 4 bullets? 0.75 seconds. But I am sure you caught that in the case during arguments...

# of bullets doesn't make self-defense just or unjust. I figure 1 second to fire as many bullets as you like to eliminate a threat to one's life is fair. Next lame argument, please.