The persons Rittenhouse shot were all criminal felons with records...

Do you have any evidence that the three people shot were rioting?

There is video evidence that all three people who were shot were either assaulting Kyle Rittenhouse or advancing toward him threateningly in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to fear for their life.
 
It is a very bad sign for Rittenhouse that those that defend him need to make up lies about his victims. It is a worse sign that his lawyer is talking about his crimes being the "first shots in a second American Revolution." Acts of war against the US Government is not "self defense", and if that revolution fails, he is guilty of treason (according to his own lawyer).

Political partisans lie. They lied about Zimmerman and they lie about political opponents. It should be no surprise that the political extremists on this forum, both Left and Right, will lie about Rittenhouse. The good news is that the court won't allow 90% of the bullshit posted on this forum.

Like with Zimmerman, I think justice will be done. The problem for Rittenhouse is that there are multiple charges here and I doubt he's innocent of all of them from the limited evidence available. The good news for him is he was 17 at the time. This could save him a few years in prison.
 
I'm just pointing out that the three rioters he shot were:

A sex offender engaged in acts of arson
A repeat offender with felony convictions for violence
A convicted burglar in possession of an illegal firearm

It's good to see who's in favor of vigilante justice. So the next time one of your beloved Reichwing politicians is accused of rape, incest, child abuse/molestation or the like, you'll be okay with a good guy/gal with a gun executing him, right?

Here, have this.

YL1QeoQ.jpg
 
There is video evidence that all three people who were shot were either assaulting Kyle Rittenhouse or advancing toward him threateningly in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to fear for their life.

A ploy that is sure to come into play when it's LWers shooting MAGA hat wearers. ;)

And the salient points are sure to be expounded on by his defense.
Of course. The prosecution will be pointing out all of the salient points to the jury.
 
Who cares? Sick bastards trying to excuse or even champion the lowest of low. You all sound no different than the Taliban in these regards.

That's because they ARE no different than the Taliban, Al Queda, ISIS, the KKK, or any other groups who think that it's okay to murder ppl as long as you can "prove" that they had some sort of prior brush with the law. What's next? Stoning ppl for adultery? Beheading thieves?
 
Political partisans lie. They lied about Zimmerman and they lie about political opponents. It should be no surprise that the political extremists on this forum, both Left and Right, will lie about Rittenhouse. The good news is that the court won't allow 90% of the bullshit posted on this forum.

Like with Zimmerman, I think justice will be done. The problem for Rittenhouse is that there are multiple charges here and I doubt he's innocent of all of them from the limited evidence available. The good news for him is he was 17 at the time. This could save him a few years in prison.

No one on the "right" is lying about this event you dishonest dunce.
 
It's good to see who's in favor of vigilante justice. So the next time one of your beloved Reichwing politicians is accused of rape, incest, child abuse/molestation or the like, you'll be okay with a good guy/gal with a gun executing him, right?

Oh, look, a Cartoon Barbie to match Cartoon Ken. :D

Watch this and see if you witness any "executions".


Of course, I'll understand if you won't, naturally.

BTW, thanks for posting those personal photos. :burn:
 
He got quiet. Perhaps he's reviewing the footage

Don't kid yourself. He may say he watched the footage and then claim that it "proves without a shadow of a doubt that Kyle Rittenhouse was a baby-raping neo-Nazi mass murderer".
 
A ploy that is sure to come into play when it's LWers shooting MAGA hat wearers. ;)

Of course. The prosecution will be pointing out all of the salient points to the jury.

There's a difference, one you don't seem to understand, about having video of it happening vs. claiming it happened without proof.
 
There's a difference, one you don't seem to understand, about having video of it happening vs. claiming it happened without proof.

I know you aren't the brightest bulb even in a family of hillbilly meth addicts, but scroll up and you'll see I do know the difference.


4g0eqi.jpg
 
Back
Top