Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's something that I haven't seen bought up. Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 at the time all this happened. There was a riot in progress involving serious violence. Looting, arson ,assaults of various degrees of severity. He went to Kenosha and joined up with his group. In other words he came when called. All of them including Rittenhouse were acting in the capacity of a citizen militia defending Kenosha against violent criminals. I have news for all the lefty wokey tokey's. Mobs of violent criminals are solid reason to form citizen militia.
And KR being 17 was of age to serve in the Militia. THE Militia. The one the 2A speaks of being "necessary for the SECURITY of a free state." Citizens of every single city BLM and ANTIFA sacked and burned last yea had solid and legal grounds to form the Militia and fight back. KR was indeed acting in that capacity and was of age to do so. When he was attacked his attackers were assailing a member of the citizen Militia. That is certainly how the cops saw KR that night. A Militia member defending the city against criminal violence.
That mantle was bestowed when he answered the call to arms. "The RIGHT or the People to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed." And criminal violence is certainly reason to bear arms. And before some wokey tokey tries to say it don't try the "well regulated" schtick. "Well regulated" means equipped and proficient in the use of arms. Kyle Rittenhouse was, is and shall remain a citizen in good standing. One who exercised his right to keep and BEAR arms in defense of the community as a member of the Militia.
Since he is of legal age for service in the Militia that negates all the trumped up curfew and weapons charges. He is NOT GUILTY on all counts.
All of the clear thinkers with eyes and ears can see that there was no crime committed, that could be the reason it appears to be bias..?
Note to the public. Dont show up at a riot carrying an AR15. Then dont be surprised when you shoot several people. You took the weapon, using it was your interest.
It's amazing that after everything we've seen and heard the past 10 days or so, journalists still can't write things that are factual. This is from an article published today in the USA Today
"On Aug. 25, 2020, Rittenhouse took his assault rifle and drove from his home state of Illinois to a Black Lives Matter protest in Wisconsin."
I have never said rittenhouse deserve to be killed. Never. I have served on a jury attempted murder. Don’t misrepresent my posting please.
If you don't think he should have been killed, why are you arguing that he is guilty? He had two options from the moment Rosenbaum caught up to him: defend himself or allow an obviously deranged individual who had already threatened him to get hold of him and the rifle he carried. That was it. It doesn't matter why he was there, he never initiated violence. He was attacked. Should he have defended himself when he was attacked or should he have allowed Rosenbaum to kill him? Those are the options which were available to him at the time. Since you are arguing that Rittenhouse is in the wrong, you must believe that he should have been killed.
Note to the public. Dont show up at a riot carrying an AR15. Then dont be surprised when you shoot several people. You took the weapon, using it was your interest.
I don't have confidence in 75 year old Judge Schroeder's ability to be unbiased in the case.
From the earliest phases in which he banned the prosecutors from even using the word "victims" to describe the two who were murdered (yet he made it point to say the victims could be called "rioters", "looters", or "arsonists" (though they were not convicted of any of those crimes) to him snapping at the prosecutor for asking very reasonable questions.
He clearly has a bias on who the law should protect and who it should not protect.
I don't have confidence in 75 year old Judge Schroeder's ability to be unbiased in the case.
From the earliest phases in which he banned the prosecutors from even using the word "victims" to describe the two who were murdered (yet he made it point to say the victims could be called "rioters", "looters", or "arsonists" (though they were not convicted of any of those crimes) to him snapping at the prosecutor for asking very reasonable questions.
He clearly has a bias on who the law should protect and who it should not protect.
If you watched Court TV the attorneys explained that courts never allow a prosecutor to call the dead people in a murder trial victims they have to use the word decedent. The judge said the protestors could not be called looters unless there was proof that person was looting. Media took what he said twisted it around. The defense never called any of the 3 who were shot looters they just used their names. It's the job of the jury to determine if the dead are victims.
If you don't think he should have been killed, why are you arguing that he is guilty? He had two options from the moment Rosenbaum caught up to him: defend himself or allow an obviously deranged individual who had already threatened him to get hold of him and the rifle he carried. That was it. It doesn't matter why he was there, he never initiated violence. He was attacked. Should he have defended himself when he was attacked or should he have allowed Rosenbaum to kill him? Those are the options which were available to him at the time. Since you are arguing that Rittenhouse is in the wrong, you must believe that he should have been killed.
You need to read my posts again. Never said the kid was guilty either. Ive said rittenhouse was a 17 year old playing vigilante. Something he shouldn’t of done to start with. He had no business putting himself in the middle of that. Nor by the way did the rioters have any business doing what they did. I also don’t assume all the defense or prosecution says as fact. I haven’t prejudge the kid as guilty just stupid. I’ll let the jury who receives the evidence make that call.
I don't have confidence in Judge Schroeder's ability to be unbiased in the case.
From the earliest phases in which he banned the prosecutors from even using the word "victims" to describe the two who were murdered (yet he made it point to say the victims could be called "rioters", "looters", or "arsonists" (though they were not convicted of any of those crimes) to him snapping at the prosecutor for asking very reasonable questions.
He clearly has a bias on who the law should protect and who it should not protect.
Ok, they can call them Ex-cons and a Child Rapist, which would be accurate
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
