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.
Very true, regardless of their background they didn’t deserve to be killed by a 17 year old that should never have been there in the first place.
Maybe they should have thought about that before attacking a 17 year old who was carrying a rifle. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Whether Rittenhouse should have been there is irrelevant. He was attacked by Rosenbaum, an obviously deranged individual who had previously threatened to kill him. If there’s a scorecard for bad decisions on the part of the participants, Rosenbaum wins handily. His life was evidently a series of bad decisions, the worst being when he decided to attack an armed 17 year old in the obviously mistaken belief that the kid wouldn’t/couldn’t hurt him.
Or perhaps you believe that it would be better if they were successful in their attacks? You’d rather see the 17 year old lying on the ground beaten to death as punishment for protecting businesses from the rioters and treating wounded people, I guess. Seems like an odd position to take, but that’s what both you and the poster you responded to are saying in ambiguous terms.
There are no shades of grey in this case. Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked by the two deceased and one injured individual. All video and testimony have highlighted the fact that in every instance he acted defensively. If his intent in carrying the rifle had been to shoot people in a non defensive manner, he’s a terrible mass killer. There are at least 3, if not more, people who were within easy range and line of fire of his position on the ground who he did not pull the trigger on. Why, in your minds, would someone intending to shoot people for nefarious reasons pass up the chance for more victims? It’s either right or wrong to defend yourself.
That’s the core question of this case. When attacked, you either have the right to defend yourself or you don’t. Because every instance of Rittenhouse pulling the trigger was a classic example of self defense.
His defense has an uphill climb. They have to convince the jury that he had a rational reason to leave the safety and security of his own home.
No he don't. He has the same rights as the protesters that many were looting and burning to be in the streets. Where were the cops? I forgot, they were ordered to stand down and let the criminals do what they wanted. If cops were allowed to do their jobs this never happens but of course the democrat politicians that ordered the cops to stand down and allow this chaos will never face the music.
He was attacked with a gun by a criminal that said he was going to kill the defendant and a mob went after him. If this isn't self defense or that he felt his life was in grave danger and he had to act then I don't know what it. The prosecution's case is a debacle. Bad people with so much power.
Our judicial system is becoming a joke. A complete extension of the woke party agenda.
It isn't, wait for the jury verdict. Insane media and anonymous partisan posters does not make our judicial system a joke.
This case had enough elements to it that while it may not be brought to trial everywhere, it is probably for the best to show this debacle of a prosecution.
You know guys I am happy not to be directly involved. In my mind Kyle may have a good case in the first incident. But the second and third should send him up for a few years. When it becomes clear you are an escaping killler you do not get to claim those after you are not legal. Surrender to the cops and end it.
It isn't, wait for the jury verdict. Insane media and anonymous partisan posters does not make our judicial system a joke.
This case had enough elements to it that while it may not be brought to trial everywhere, it is probably for the best to show this debacle of a prosecution.
We all have an excuse to kill now. Dead men don't tell lies. Too bad battered women can't get away with this kind of killing.
You haven't made a single legal point in the 100+ pages here and instead cling to throwing out fascist emotional dogma because you don't like the politics.
You even said before it was an uphill fight for the defense....you're delusion is barely shifting fast enough to match reality.
You know guys I am happy not to be directly involved. In my mind Kyle may have a good case in the first incident. But the second and third should send him up for a few years. When it becomes clear you are an escaping killler you do not get to claim those after you are not legal. Surrender to the cops and end it.
Ummm, yea, unless those killed are within a few seconds...
So, after the first one was killed, why were the others still there? That's your logic, right? The other should have ran after the first one was killed, right?
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.
