Nope.
They’d be alive if they didn’t chase him, throw a bag at this head while shooting a gun into the air, beating him with a skateboard, and pointing another gun at him.
You gotta be kidding me with your take
So weird in that situation that the victims we’re acting fearful and hostile towards the random
white guy with a gun.
Also just a coincidence that the far right and worst, most racist people in American politics and punditry made this guy part of their cause. Just coincidence I guess.
Lol
Sorry you got worked into a tizzy defending lil larping doughboy.
Okay. Kyle’s ‘good judgement’ put him in a time and place where this type of situation can easily occur. The narrative that good ole Kyle showed restraint in the moment is perhaps the one that will exonerate him, but spectacularly sad.
If anybody is lying here, it is you:
3 Likes
I get worked into a tizzy by people who use lying as a shortcut to thinking
1 Like
This video is weeks before the incident at hand. Strange you don’t show the video of him cleaning up graffiti the same day of the shooting, but that wouldn’t fit your narrative that he was only there to shoot up a bunch of black people now would it
I’m not even interested in defending him as a person. He seems to be a wannabe cop with authoritarian issues. The exact type of person I can’t stand. I’m only objectively pointing out what actually happened that day and why you people are so wrong and/or liars about it
2 Likes
I made a comment earlier in this thread along the same lines. We are able to place this in the context of the broader culture and take into account information that the judge blocked because it was deemed legally prejudicial. Context matters when developing perspectives, even if the court system has baked in procedures to screen certain context from juries. This is some apples/oranges stuff.
Black guy walks into a cop station carrying an AR-15. Cops immediately rush towards him and try to subdue him. He shoots a couple. Also justified? Or is this benefit of the doubt when it comes to motive only given to little white boys?
1 Like
That’s all I’m saying. Legally, it’s not the slam dunk case everyone seems to think it is. A good argument can be made for justifiable self defense
Also, we can’t know why he was there. The narrative that he crossed state lines and went way out of his way is bullshit. He worked in Kenosha and lived just 30 minutes away. He had some ties to the community
lolz you’re asking the wrong person. I’d be fine with it
Agree him saying it the day of would be even better but him saying it two weeks before is pretty damn compelling evidence that Amead’s statement is true in and of itself!
Re: the graffiti, it is evidence Rittenhouse was sincerely pissed about what the rioters were doing, but doesn’t rebut the evidence that he thought he should be able to kill them for it. True, he didn’t actually kill them until he had a good legal defense but that is what makes the case so difficult.
I don’t believe anybody holds that view. I don’t want to speak for others, but the overall “narrative” as I understand it is:
He had a cultural belief in the righteousness of cops and the power of guns to defend cops and property owners.
He had a mindset, BEFORE he was under a perceived immediate threat, that the possession or use of automatic weapons in a conflict with protestors was a good idea.
He CHOSE to go insert himself and his dangerous weapon into a volatile public setting that any reasonable person would understand could escalate into violence.
The fact that dead bodies arose out of this situation is important. He didn’t get magically teleported by diabolical liberals into a situation where he had to defend himself. There was no need for him to be there other than his personal delusions about being a heroic vigilante. Context matters, even if for strictly legal purposes it is screened from jurors.
4 Likes
I’m not going to try to get inside the kid’s permanent psyche. My comments only pertain to what happened that night. There is no reason to think he was looking for trouble. He did not provoke anyone. He was being chased by an angry mob. All the victims were white and attacking him! If he were truly as unstable and murderous and many people claim, he could easily have killed a lot more people
LALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALA.
3 Likes
I’ll go ahead and take claim to that view, depending on how we’re using the word “only”
There is a 0.0% chance he puts himself in this situation if it’s a bunch of white MAGAers rioting around something like, say, an election. Does that mean he was “only” there to shoot up a bunch of black people? Kinda, yea?
1 Like
Cactus,
Very few people here believe it is a legal slam dunk. The case for Rittenhouse’s defense has been made by a number of people who think he is an absolute scumbag and morally wrong.
Most of us think the law is an absolute joke and having citizens bring a gun into a situation such as this is worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater, and that Rittenhouse and others of his ilk should be forced to bear responsibility when they up the ante in inherently dangerous situations. I am sure you would disagree with that, but the opinion of the forum on this legal case is not monolithic and is much more nuanced than you are giving credit for.
Written into the law is bias in favor of idiots who think traveling to dangerous places with weapons and gunning people down-- something we know Rittenhouse is in favor of from his videos-- is their God-given right. That the “law” makes the case about whether he reasonably feared for his life is a joke.
I agree with you based on the legal standard of reasonable doubt that he is probably not guilty, it’s just an abomination that this is the case. It is a complete disaster with ruinous consequences to life that the law encourages people such as Rittenhouse to behave this way.
14 Likes
I award you half credit.
5 Likes