Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

Only idiots would celebrate him as a hero
images
 
Why is this idiot ADA still talking. I’m pretty sure what I’m hearing hashed out now was already gone over prior? In fact I thought it was recorded until I saw the live tag
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
I've served on a few jury's and I guarantee you that the jury in this case thinks the prosecutor is a douche nozzle and the longer he attacks Rittenhouse the shorter the fuse he gets.
The prosecutor in my opinion, had dug himself a hole and he'll never win this case.
 
18 year old.

Borrows a rifle from a friend.

Drives to another state.

There to "protect" an auto dealership.

Auto dealer didn't ask him to protect his place.

Shoots a man.

Runs off.

Identified as an active shooter by onlookers.

Onlookers attempt to stop active shooter.

Shoots onlookers in "self defense" while running.

# # #

Ask yourself this. Would you be good with your kiddo following the steps above?

If you are, you have issues. If not... and you're a juror... you find Rittenhouse guilty of manslaughter.

If RIttenhouse walks off from this (probably will), I'm sitting back with my popcorn and watching it all burn baby. As it should.
 
18 year old.

Borrows a rifle from a friend.

Drives to another state.

There to "protect" an auto dealership.

Auto dealer didn't ask him to protect his place.

Shoots a man.

Runs off.

Identified as an active shooter by onlookers.

Onlookers attempt to stop active shooter.

Shoots onlookers in "self defense" while running.

# # #

Ask yourself this. Would you be good with your kiddo following the steps above?

If you are, you have issues. If not... and you're a juror... you find Rittenhouse guilty of manslaughter.

If RIttenhouse walks off from this (probably will), I'm sitting back with my popcorn and watching it all burn baby. As it should.

Except having almost all the facts wrong you made a decent argument.
 
Also only idiots think he is a murderer
I've never said he was a murderer. What a stupidass response, reflected by someone who has no ability to distinguish detail or apply nuance to a situation. There is plenty of middle ground on this issue but it escapes your narrow, binary thought processes.
 
Heh. I'll bite. Go ahead and correct any of the facts I presented.

He didn't transport the rifle from home, across state lines.
The business owner did ask and offered to pay.
Shoots a man in self defense, then runs away when the mob started chasing him.
Shoots "onlooker" who was attacking him while armed.
 
He didn't transport the rifle from home, across state lines.
The business owner did ask and offered to pay.
Shoots a man in self defense, then runs away when the mob started chasing him.
Shoots "onlooker" who was attacking him while armed.

You are correct on the rifle transportation.
You are wrong on the business owner. He testified that he didn't ask Rittenhouse to guard his place. See the following:
Car shop owners deny asking Rittenhouse, armed men to protect their property during unrest
As for your argument that he shoot a man in "self-defense", Rittenhouse acknowledged that he was there to "protect" the auto dealership even though the auto dealer owner says he didn't ask him to. Regardless, when you show up, to "protect" a place, with a gun... the concept of self-defense is out the window. It's illegal to shoot looters. Period.

The group of onlookers were right in trying to stop an active shooter. Should you disagree, think about a dude shooting a loved one of yours then running off... would you try to stop him? If he shot you, would you be OK with being shot because the ARMED MAN said he was threatened by you?

This whole debate is asinine.

Let's just sit back and enjoy the show.

Following the verdict, watch it all burn down.
 

VN Store



Back
Top