Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#2,701
#2,701


Tucker: Why did they let Kenosha burn?
Nov. 17, 2021 - 15:45 - 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host discusses the Kyle Rittenhouse trial




Tucker Carlson: Why did the people in charge let Kenosha be destroyed?
This whole spectacle is appalling



Just another evening in what has become a pretty high drama country, really. The jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has gone home for the night after many hours of deliberations today. The average jury reaches a verdict in just a few hours, so these jurors are taking much longer than most.

But it's probably not because the evidence they have heard is confusing them. In a typical trial, an insider trading trial for example, something complex, an honest observer might be able to see both sides of the case and probably can. But that is not true here, far from it.

In fact, it's the opposite from the very first moments of this trial it was obvious that Kyle Rittenhouse never should have been indicted in the first place. The key question was: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self-defense that night in Kenosha? And the answer unequivocally is yes. Obviously, it's a no-brainer. It's like the O.J. trial, no honest person could reach a different conclusion.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot men he believed were trying to kill him. Now, why did Kyle Rittenhouse believe that, you may ask? Well, in one case, the man he shot told him so directly, "I plan to kill you." Of the other two men Kyle Rittenhouse shot, one repeatedly bashed him in the head with a skateboard as he lay on the ground. The other stuck a loaded gun in his face. So Kyle Rittenhouse fought back in order to save his own life.

Tucker Carlson: Why did the people in charge let Kenosha be destroyed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, StarRaider, MemphisVol77 and 1 other person
#2,703
#2,703
RockyTop85 said:
Im not pretending anything.

He argued with CNN talking heads from the bench, did the whole applause for veterans thing, and had the defendant draw alternates out in a raffle. Independently they’re just oddities. Taken together, he’s absolutely playing for attention. I never said it was a problem, at least not with the outcome of the case.

Rittenhouse killed two people, was indicted by a grand jury for murder, and the situation has received national attention. The government absolutely has an obligation to determine whether those lives were justifiably taken, or whether the killing was criminal. That determination involves either a unilateral decision to dismiss by prosecutors or a jury verdict.

Having the determination made by a deliberative body it preferred because it lends weight to the outcome, limiting doubt about its validity as effectively as our imperfect system can manage. It also dispels questions about improper motives on the part of the decisionmaker.

For example, I recently had an argument on here with some moron who said that prosecutors dropping charges wasn’t sufficient to clear someone’s name. He insisted that the person was a rapist, even though they were never convicted and weren’t even indicted by a grand jury.
Click to expand...
Kind of like the arguments made against Flynn when his charges were dropped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#2,707
#2,707
Vol8188 said:
You’ve put a lot of effort into not explaining. I have followed the trial. So what about cnn and the judge are you talking about?

The video is obviously the main reason along with the forensics and witness testimony. There is zero evidence that supports the charges. But I mean, we don’t want morons to be upset
Click to expand...

Correct, I’m not explaining anything else to you. You made up your mind without the information, realizing that you didn’t know what you were talking about didn’t give you pause, and you continue to strawman other points that I made.

It’s an issue of credibility and you have none. There’s absolutely no incentive for me to supply you with information when you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’ll just resort to bad faith arguments when you run out of good faith ones.

It was literally discussed in this thread. Go look it up for yourself.

P.S. as funny as it is to watch you admit that you’re a moron, I feel I should tell you that you were the person couldn’t accept that Jacob Blake wasn’t a rapist.
 
#2,708
#2,708
RockyTop85 said:
Correct, I’m not explaining anything else to you. You made up your mind without the information, realizing that you didn’t know what you were talking about didn’t give you pause, and you continue to strawman other points that I made.

It’s an issue of credibility and you have none. There’s absolutely no incentive for me to supply you with information when you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’ll just resort to bad faith arguments when you run out of good faith ones.

It was literally discussed in this thread. Go look it up for yourself.

P.S. as funny as it is to watch you admit that you’re a moron, I feel I should tell you that you were the person couldn’t accept that Jacob Blake wasn’t a rapist.
Click to expand...

What single bad faith argument have I made? You seem to be the only person here arguing in bad faith by proclaiming me to be ignorant while refusing to supply me any context. What did the judge openly argue with cnn regarding?

The question of is Jacob Blake a rapist is a very debatable one. Not enough evidence does not mean innocent. At a minimum he’s a mentally unstable man who was justifiably shot, similar to Rosenbaum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, W.TN.Orange Blood and ButchPlz
#2,709
#2,709
utvols88 said:
That's why I have an issue with the handling. He should have been arrested and charged. It could also be in the cloud as well.
Click to expand...
Honestly he should have been detained and charged, it is illegal to video the court, the phone confiscated pending analysis to make sure it was not disseminated or shared.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol and StarRaider
#2,711
#2,711
vol445 said:
And should be arrested for trying to intimidate a jury
Click to expand...
And they should go to prison for a few years. We really need to make a few examples of people because this is a frightening occurrence. If a mob can intimidate a jury to get a verdict they want, what else can they do thru intimidation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol, StarRaider and W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,714
#2,714
Vol8188 said:
What single bad faith argument have I made? You seem to be the only person here arguing in bad faith by proclaiming me to be ignorant while refusing to supply me any context. What did the judge openly argue with cnn regarding?

The question of is Jacob Blake a rapist is a very debatable one. Not enough evidence does not mean innocent. At a minimum he’s a mentally unstable man who was justifiably shot, similar to Rosenbaum.
Click to expand...
Every single post you respond to me by making up new, dumber arguments that are easier for you to respond to. Here’s one example:
[VIDEO=][/VIDEO]
Vol8188 said:
Some people are morons isn’t a valid excuse for putting someone through this in a clear cut case.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said. It’s not in any way representative of what I said. It’s a bad faith attempt to dumb down what I said into something that you can respond to. That’s what a strawman is and it’s a bad faith argument. Amusingly, you did it again in the post that started out “so you can’t say it’s a strawman.”

Again on the CNN thing: Google it. Or go back and look in this thread. I’m not going to go looking for a link when you clearly don’t feel the need to be informed before making up your mind.
 
#2,715
#2,715
RockyTop85 said:
Every single post you respond to me by making up new, dumber arguments that are easier for you to respond to. Here’s one example:
[VIDEO=][/VIDEO]
That’s not what I said. It’s not in any way representative of what I said. It’s a bad faith attempt to dumb down what I said into something that you can respond to. That’s what a strawman is and it’s a bad faith argument. Amusingly, you did it again in the post that started out “so you can’t say it’s a strawman.”

Again on the CNN thing: Google it. Or go back and look in this thread. I’m not going to go looking for a link when you clearly don’t feel the need to be informed before making up your mind.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, my favorite source: [VIDEO=][/VIDEO].
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, Vol8188 and hog88
#2,716
#2,716
RockyTop85 said:
Every single post you respond to me by making up new, dumber arguments that are easier for you to respond to. Here’s one example:
[VIDEO=][/VIDEO]
That’s not what I said. It’s not in any way representative of what I said. It’s a bad faith attempt to dumb down what I said into something that you can respond to. That’s what a strawman is and it’s a bad faith argument. Amusingly, you did it again in the post that started out “so you can’t say it’s a strawman.”

Again on the CNN thing: Google it. Or go back and look in this thread. I’m not going to go looking for a link when you clearly don’t feel the need to be informed before making up your mind.
Click to expand...

It’s not a strawman. Morons may think he’s guilty if he doesn’t go to trial was an actual part of your argument. I even went through and addressed every single point you made.

What’s really a dumb argument though is your entire reason for why this should’ve went to trial. Cases should go to trial based on evidence.

At no point did you address any evidence that supports the charges. You mentioned media and morons.

What would you like me to Google? I’ve tried “Rittenhouse judge addresses cnn” and I’ve got nothing
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol and hog88
#2,717
#2,717
Vol8188 said:
It’s not a strawman. Morons may think he’s guilty if he doesn’t go to trial was an actual part of your argument. I even went through and addressed every single point you made.

What’s really a dumb argument though is your entire reason for why this should’ve went to trial. Cases should go to trial based on evidence.

At no point did you address any evidence that supports the charges. You mentioned media and morons.

What would you like me to Google? I’ve tried “Rittenhouse judge addresses cnn” and I’ve got nothing
Click to expand...
Try searching for [VIDEO=][/VIDEO] and maybe you'll get something.

Then again maybe he's making an artistic point and posted nothing on purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#2,718
#2,718
Vol8188 said:
So you can’t claim I’m strawmaning I’ll quote and respond to each part of this weak argument
1. Yes
2. Should have never went to a grand jury due to insufficient evidence
3. Media doesn’t get to determine outcomes, that’s called mob justice
4. Yes
5. Yes

Then the rest is the part I already addressed. It’s absurd to claim we should take something to trial so a moron doesn’t assume guilt. It’s unnecessary added burden on an obviously innocent individual based on all available evidence.

Can you name any piece of evidence that runs counter to his self defense claim? If so, then maybe you can make a case for why the case should’ve went to trial. But “the media cover it” or “morons” are neither valid reasons. Nor is “he killed someone”.
Click to expand...

Bump in case he missed it
 
#2,719
#2,719
I'm puzzled by the judge/CNN thing as well. I'm curious as to what he's referencing. If he can't direct us to the actual post perhaps he can paraphrase or give a quick run down?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and Vol8188
#2,720
#2,720
KB5252 said:
I'm puzzled by the judge/CNN thing as well. I'm curious as to what he's referencing. If he can't direct us to the actual post perhaps he can paraphrase or give a quick run down?
Click to expand...

He's pulling shizz out of his ass as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#2,721
#2,721
RockyTop85 said:
Correct, I’m not explaining anything else to you. You made up your mind without the information, realizing that you didn’t know what you were talking about didn’t give you pause, and you continue to strawman other points that I made.

It’s an issue of credibility and you have none. There’s absolutely no incentive for me to supply you with information when you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’ll just resort to bad faith arguments when you run out of good faith ones.

It was literally discussed in this thread. Go look it up for yourself.

P.S. as funny as it is to watch you admit that you’re a moron, I feel I should tell you that you were the person couldn’t accept that Jacob Blake wasn’t a rapist.
Click to expand...
Isn't that because he took a plea bargain?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top