and the guy chasing too had murderous intent? but the guy that actually shot and killed someone, we should excuse afterall, we don't know if the shooter intended to kill, but the person chasing definitely intended to kill.
Free Kyle
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
You may want to look up the definitions of “murderous”, which derives from “murder”.
Don’t they teach those things at the Ivy League schools?
Last edited:
True on all counts. A quick google search shows a lot of people dying from getting hit in the head with a skateboard.
This is how ridiculous Bidet's America has gotten, we are at the point where some think it's okay to hit someone in the head with an object because some fictitious 'intent' isn't known. I mean what else would he be trying to do clean off some of Kyle's dandruff with it?
Well he did threaten Kyle earlier, so there is that. And also raped a bunch of little kids so there is that too.
It's astounding how much the left now loves felons and pedophiles.
Kyle just took out the trashWell he did threaten Kyle earlier, so there is that. And also raped a bunch of little kids so there is that too.
It's astounding how much the left now loves felons and pedophiles.
I am not sure what the point of this is. I am not defending any of these men. But i sure don't see a history of killing others in their rap sheet.Well he did threaten Kyle earlier, so there is that. And also raped a bunch of little kids so there is that too.
It's astounding how much the left now loves felons and pedophiles.
Only one of the 4 persons involved actually killed people (I am not examining his reasons). I just find it funny, that we assume intent to kill for those that did not, but not for the one that actually did.
good for you. I just don't ever see humans as trash. I don't expect you to agree with me.
My own opinion on this issue (and I am not a lawyer or legal expert), I genuinely wished Kyle Rittenhouse had not opted to come there with a gun. Actually, at 17, I wished he would have just stayed home. I am fan of getting some punishment (jail time), when clearly injudicious/negligent decisions lead to avoidable loss of life, regardless of intent. That's my opinion only. The law is a separate thing. And it's not my area to weigh in on.
I am not sure what's to be gained from showing up with a gun to mob protests that are counter to your ideology. There are professionals to deal with that if it goes out of hand (as mobs of humans often tend to do).
Killing someone doesn’t require an intent to kill
I completely agree that a 17 year old showing up to a riot with a rifle is a horrible idea, but that’s not what’s on trial.
And I’ll have to agree to disagree, some humans have earned the title of and are trash. Raping children is one of those qualifiers. But to each his own.
They have a history of violent acts and with Kyle defending himself from their high potential of killing him, they won't get the chance. I mean it's not like one of them didn't point a illegal gun at Kyle's head right?
Nope, not definitively in all scenarios but in this specific case, I think telling people you’re going to kill a person and then trying to hit them upside the head with a skateboard would qualify as definitive.
Which none were present to deal with it. Just think had the national guard or anything been sent out to deal with the communist mob, Kyle probably wouldn't of been there in the first place. So Kyle stepped up and did what the left didn't want to do.
Exactly. This case is a clear case of self defense. The trial itself has been a mess and now we just learned that MSNBC has been banned from the court because they followed the jury and tried to film them.
I am sorry this is not a very smart comment. What kind of society would we turn to if every individual takes it upon themself to go police others however that individual deems fit. In your haste to defend Rittenhouse, you find yourself advocating for nonsense.
Sorry I don't see the parallel. A 17-year-old with parental consent to join the military is not an issue. Your son goes there to get training and learn how to fire a gun and etc. You trust that there are professionals there to guide and take care of your 17-year-old.
But Kyle has no prior training, right? He is stepping into a chaotic riot. So how does it makes sense for him to go all the way to the middle of a riot, while carrying a dangerous assault rifle? I just don't get it.
If the place is safe, there is no need to bring an assault rifle. If it isn't safe, a minor with no professional training shouldn't be there in the first place.
Isn't that common sense?
It is not irrelevant. Rather, it is at the heart of the very issue.
Sure, the rioters shouldn't be there, and that's why there were law enforcement to arrest those who didn't follow the curfew.
So why should we want a 17-year-old without any training to carry a rifle into the chaos? What is the goal to accomplish? Is it a good idea to let anyone, even minors, to carry guns to a riot scene?
Clearly my comment went over your head because that isn't the context of my post at all. Especially when I said this:
Just think had the national guard or anything been sent out to deal with the communist mob, Kyle probably wouldn't of been there in the first place
Which clearly is saying that in this instance, not as a general rule, that had the Police been there we wouldn't be having this conversation at all most likely.
Based on his accuracy, he was 'trained' pretty well I'd say.
That’s a dumb comment. The police were there. The same police that watched Rittenhouse walk down the street with an AR-15 with no consequences. Even if the national guard were there, Rittenhouse would have still gone there because trouble is what he was looking for. He is just lucky that the dumbass judge throughout the underage gun charge. WI law clearly states that no one under 18 should possess a gun. Says nothing about some bullsh*t barrel length he rules on.
What kind of society would we be when convicted felons are allowed to riot, loot, attack cops and destroy businesses while those sworn to serve and protect are told to stand down?
Again, he’s not being tried for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Therefore, it’s irrelevant to the case.
Should the guys who got shot been assaulting a 17 yr old carrying a gun?
NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!
This was the exact right outcome of this case. It's completely moot on whether he "should of been there" in the first place. You judge the case on the actions at hand and it was clear cut self defense.
Congrats Kyle.
This was the exact right outcome of this case. It's completely moot on whether he "should of been there" in the first place. You judge the case on the actions at hand and it was clear cut self defense.
Congrats Kyle.
I will raise one to Kyle during happy hour this evening. Hell, I might buy the house a round.
THERE ARE? DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION OR BILL OF RIGHTS?
This case absolutely disproves your bullshit theory. After the evidence was revealed during the trial, it was clear the kid should have never been charged in the first place. The fbi suppressed evidence that would have exonerated him. What a ridiculous and ignorant statement
If y’all was wondering why blacks were so elated after the OJ Simpson trial, the acquittals similar to this Rittenhouse verdict was the reason why.
That is quite a reach trying to make those two cases the same because they really couldn't be more different.
Wait a second....you mean OJ didn't brutally murder his wife and her friend? Wow...that's a shocker.
That means there's still a killer roaming the streets of LA. We must find him!
