What's the deal with Rittenhouse?

[malwins]

i thought self defense is allowed

Updates

+1 y

how do they know he even did anything because that footage was chaotic af 😂

[Red_Arrow]

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 and living with his mother in Antioch, Illinois when he took a gun and went to Kenosho, Wisconsin. His intent is a key factor. He has been very pro police, and pictures of him in a police cadet uniform have surfaced. It is important to realize he was NOT a peace officer, that he was a minor transporting a weapon to another state, and that he waded into the chaos with that weapon. He was not old enough to be hired as armed security. So he was really in the wrong in many ways.
His argument of self defense can be used by some he shot because Kyle went there with a gun and was firing at protesters.
Legal points that are against Kyle include the fact that he was under 18 in possesion of a dangerous weapon. He is accused of killing two men and faces charges attempted homicide and of reckless endangerment.
He was totally wrong for wading into the fray with a weapon as a minor and things got worse as they went along. He could be found innocent of the murder charges and still face charges that are undeniable for his involvement.

[captain_voidwalker]

Allow me to correct you on a few things here bud. #1 he did not transport a weapon across state lines, he picked the weapon up from a freind in Michigan.
#2 he was a trained EMT and went to render aid and put out fires. Infact putting out a fire in a dumpster that some antifa were pushing into a gas station is what started the whole mess.
#3 in the state of Michigan a minor is anyone under the age of 16.
And on a personal note I'll say that the real shame isn't that he went into the fray , but that a one 17year old was the only person out thier standing up to antifa and blm terrorists. If every resident of Kenosha did what Kyle did there wouldn't have been any riots to begin with.

[Red_Arrow]

@captain_voidwalker Earlier reports were that his mother brought it across state lines. Why are you telling me what a minor is in Michigan? Dominick Black purchased the gun at the Wisconsin gun store Ladysmith Ace Home Center for Kyle using Kyle's money. According to a criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting, however, In interviews the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests. So black and Kyle conspired to purchase the weapon for Kyle, which was illegal. So having the gun was illegal, and his given reason was a lie.

[captain_voidwalker]

Of course black denied asking Kyle for help. Otherwise he'd have an army of Burn Loot Murder destroying his business that he worked his whole life to have. But even if Kyle lied about his reason to be there he still had a right to self defense and a 2nd amendment right to carry a gun.

[Red_Arrow]

@captain_voidwalker What business that he worked his whole life to have? And the second amendment is not as simple as you try to make it. There are still laws about what weapons can be purchased and by who (which they violated) and laws about where you can carry it and when as well as if the person carrying has required training and permits.. Each state has laws about those things. Even the dumbest people know that! What is yoour excuse?

[captain_voidwalker]

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. Seems simple and clear cut to me

[Red_Arrow]

@captain_voidwalker In 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme court struct down much of the District of Columbia restrictions, but also made it clear that right is not unlimited. Even you, with your weird beliefs, must know that it does not preclude the posession of firearms by felons and mentally ill, and that there can be restictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". So you can cancel your order for the tank and nuclear weapons.

[sawno]

Self Defense is allowed, the problem is that he attacked a political group that was destroying the town. Which means that an entire radically political wing is opposed to him defending the town. They want to see things burn because they want power for themselves and to bully others. So naturally they come at him with full force, in this case force of the law before new riots happen. They are thugs, but that does impact the case so that this guy might end up convinced of something that does not line with reality.

[LegendaryIcon]

So, if I did the same thing as rittenhouse, and I'm a democrat, would you feel the same way

I don't own a gun, nor do i want to. I also wasn't "defending a state i don't even live in"

HE DROVE ILLEGALLY, CROSS STATE LINES. HE DID NOT HAVE A LICENSE

[sawno]

@LegendaryIcon His illegal driving was not what he was charged for. And yes, i don't even know his politics. Does defending against a BLM riot make you right wing? Because for me i don't care why he was there. He was trying to be a hero by defending buildings, putting out fires and admunistering first aid. That was his intent. That in a moment of panick he killed someone does not look bad on his character to me, i only judge people by intent. Not by actions. Not by political affiliation (Genuinely don't know his or if he has one to begin with).

[Anonymous]

His claims of self-defense are undermined by the fact that he armed himself and traveled to another state just to confront protesters. It’s harder to claim victim hood when you sought confrontation. Since self-defense cases often hinge on the shooters state of mind and beliefs at the time of the incident, they are rarely black and white. That’s why different prosecutors and different juries are never consistent in how they see it.

[purplepoppy]

Because it wasn't self defence it was premeditated murder. If armed intruders come to your house screaming their going to kill you it's selfdefence. Driving to a riot well away from your home to do be a hero makes you a murderer.

[Naydyonov]

If you are a war reporter who travels to Syria and while there you are attacked by some ISIS dude, defend yourself, and kill the attacker, then you are a murderer because you fly from your home to a country in war?
The fact that a riot is taking place doesn't justify rioters to chase after people and threaten them.

[purplepoppy]

There's a huge difference between being there because your job requires you and being there because you want an excuse to kill people.

[Naydyonov]

You understand that he only shot people who chased after him & attacked him, right?
If he wanted simply to shoot people, he could have gunned down dozens of people who were in the street. Instead, after shooting the first attacker, he ran straight towards the police line. Only a hundred or so meters away from the police, he was attacked by other people, which is when he shot those attacking him.
100% of the people who didn't attack him weren't shot.
Have you not seen the footage?

[PeterQuillsAlive]

@Naydyonov ^ Most people do not realize these details though they were easy to access more than a year ago.
This is largely due to the media sensationalizing the whole ordeal.. as they do with everything.
There was a desire to make Rittenhouse the evil murderer going after defenseless protesters.

In reality, these men were instigating fights with him throughout the night.
They chased him through the streets
one of the men who was shot (GrossKreutz) admits that he was armed, pointing the gun at Rittenhouse, chasing him, and firing shots.
Not to mention when Rittenhouse pulled on him, he stated he put his hands up and feigned surrender..
and when Rittenhouse went away... he continued to chase him with the gun

They threw him on the ground
kicked him
hit him across the head with a skateboard..
etc

I am actually impressed with the amount of reserve the kid showed before eventually firing out of self defense

Sadly, most people never take the time to even look into this
that includes most media outlets that were more interested in throwing more fuel in the fire because it gives them views.

[PeterQuillsAlive]

@Naydyonov ^ another issue tends to be the "He drove through state lines to commit a murder"

It once again shows how people have been mislead on the situation
Rittenhouse was a native of Antioch, Illinois.. which is 20 miles from Kenosha
and he worked in Kenosha, and also had family that lived there.
It is common for people who live on the border of any state to work in the adjacent state.

This blows peoples minds though, that people work across state lines.

So yes, Rittenhouse was personally connected to the city of which he was aiding during the riots.

This shows how pathetic Western media has become
its only about the views
nothing else

[Naydyonov]

@PeterQuillsAlive I do agree with you.
I just can't see how anyone can watch the footage and/or listen to the trial and come out with the conclusion that Rittenhouse is a murderer. The prosecution was grabbing anything it can gets its hands own, even video games.

[PeterQuillsAlive]

@Naydyonov Yes...
Well its just the media misleading people on most of these stories

Lets be honest
Racism sells today...

They for example... were more than happy to use any story of a White person attacking Asians as another example of White Supremacy...
they made sure to highlight the perp was WHITE...

When it was Black people? it was ignored
and the far majority of the attacks mentioned in the media were black... but of course the race no longer mattered

but then when people got smart to Anti-Asian attacks (where blacks are very disproportionately involved).. and were speaking about Blacks being involved...

Well then its "White Supremacy" again.. because those Black people wouldn't act in such a way if it wasn't for the White man.

etc etc

its just race baiting
and honestly im tired of it.

It sells
nothing more

[PeterQuillsAlive]

@Naydyonov and you are right
the video game usage
or the "getting emotional on trial"
etc statements
are a sign of a prosecution that is desperate to put anything out

But what makes it worse?
I would be surprised if the kid doesn't see time.. regardless of what information is given.

[Naydyonov]

@PeterQuillsAlive Yes. It's a very low move to take and makes it very hard to take these news organizations seriously on any topic.
I worry that based on no evidence he'll still be convicted, effectively meaning self-defense no longer exists in America. Were there actually evidence of wrongdoing, okay. But throughout the trial, nothing has proved his fault. It just wasn't there.

[PeterQuillsAlive]

@Naydyonov Precisely...
its more along the line of "Twitter Justice" these days

[Naydyonov]

@PeterQuillsAlive Mob justice

[grega239]

Wasn't self defense? The guy that got shot in the arm said that kyle shot him AFTER HE POINTED A GUN IN HIS FACE. completely destroying the case against Rittenhouse

[Fuentes]

This is a time i agree with you

[MuddyMole]

It is. The issue is if you go somewhere anticipating violence, and you take a gun, then it starts to look less like self-defence, and more like you are going there spoiling for a fight, and prepared to kill somebody. I'm not saying he'll be found guilty, but that's why it's not a straightforward case, and there needed to be a thorough investigation and trial.

The criminal record of the victims is completely irrelevant, as it was not know to Rittenhouse at the time - for all he knew, they could have been doctors or priests or anything else.

Plus, I don't think anyone wants to encourage vigilantism. Leave it to the police (or even national guard) to maintain law and order. Worst case scenario, some buildings get burned down - it's just "stuff", and businesses have insurance. It's not worth killing over.

[Sabretooth]

''The criminal record of the victims is completely irrelevant, as it was not know to Rittenhouse at the time - for all he knew, they could have been doctors or priests or anything else.'' that was info to muddy the waters... I was hesitant to even believe what people said about the victims because of all the lies. this kid wanted to play GI Joe.

[joeldalton]

Self-defense is allowed. But we live in a clown world driven by emotional narratives for political gain rather than facts and logic. This means that since the left genuflects themselves to anything BLM says or does (well only till the election), we have clear cases of self-defense being prosecuted for political reasons. We have domestic terrorists threatening to riot if the rule of law is not followed and Rittenhouse is acquitted of the murder charges. But this is what happens when good people try to appease evil ones.

[Anonymous]

The deal is he was attacked by three men who were taking part in a riot destroying and burning stuff down, one of them armed with a gun pointed at him and another one a convicted pedophile, and he shot them in self defence.

To the left though it was a white Trump supporter, that’s all they need to know to decide whose side they’re on. They want this kid in jail for life for defending himself. They claim he went out because he had fantasies of killing people but he was defending businesses. They have nothing bad to say about people destroying people’s livelihoods.

It was the same as the kid in the Trump hat, Nick Sandman. He smiled as a native American guy got in his face playing a drum, and that was all they needed to see. Literally just smiled and many on the left were encouraging violence against him.

When they claim that the right are psychopaths it’s actually projection. Even worse just like the guy they’re mad that Kyle shot many of them want to touch kids.

[Floppy2112]

It's a political trial.
I just explained in another thread. 32 people, that we know of, died in the riots of last summer. One corpse was recovered weeks after rioters burned down a shop in Minneapolis. Apparently, the proprietor of that shop was trying to protect it, got burned alive and no one even knew until they were about to bulldoze the building and did a last check.
Where is the trial for the murder of this person? Or the other couple of dozen who died during these riots, the majority of those deaths were black people. Where is there trial? Where are their perpetrators? Do most of you even know that 32 people (that we know of) died in those riots? And for most of them, they aren't even getting investigated.

How is it, that out of 32 dead people, the only person that gets put on trial for 2 deaths, was one who fought back. What about these other deaths? Who crying for justice for them? Who is saying their names? Thank about that.

[exitseven]

Many lives were lost that summer and over a billion dollars of property was destroyed and the only guy to get arrested is this kid. There is overwhelming evidence that he acted in self defense and if he was black and killed a Trump supporter the loony left would be having a statue made in his honor. I am sickened by the whole thing.

[Shizunk]

It was obvious self defence and even the guy who got shot at had to basically admit that. But unfortunately everything is political. The facts of the case don't matter to people if their team is involved. There are not exactly a ton a lefties supporting him and a ton of right wingers condemning him. Public opinion is damaged beyond repair and has nothing to do with the case itself.

[captain_voidwalker]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
States it right there in the constitution. There's not a judge or a politician that can change that. The only way to change it is to have a constitutional convention and change the constitution, and that requires a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate as well as presidential approval

[Wester1967]

He was an active shooter. Should Steven Paddock who killed 58 people in Las Vegas be able to claim "like dude, I thought self defense was allowed" when he shot at cops who came to arrest him? Y'all are MFing Nazis for real.

[BeMuse]

Commies are brainwashed and have no grasp of the facts. That is all...

These people are stupid.

Q

[sawno]

Judging that screenshot its waking them. up. Still weird that the race of the victim matters but at least its waking some up.

[BeMuse]

@sawno Yep, race has no baring on the case, but it’s an example of how oblivious they are to the facts of the case and how easily the are mislead so far off course by media propaganda.

[Andres77]

Those who are trying to prosecute are the same that were ok with looting and rioting and anonymous murder that couldn't be tracked.
It's their one way to resist actual law and order by trying to hurt a kid that really wanted to help...

[malwins]

yeah it looks really obvious to me he was protecting hinself 😐

[Andres77]

He was, they don't care. The left is lashing out. It's political. If they cared about law and order they wouldn't bus people in to riot.

[Anonymous]

It's obviously political. Based on the commentary of a bunch of lawyers on the progress of the trial, anyone else would have had open and shut self defense. But then both sides are being incompetent, mostly the prosecution with multiple constitution violations during Kyle's cross-examination. The defense is weak and kinda stupid, the prosecution is very weak, very stupid, and slimy.

[Exterminatore]

It’s a political witch hunt. They hate guns and dead commies who died in the commission of a crime at the hands of a conservative. It’s a kangaroo court case being prosecuted by Bolsheviks. He’s innocent clearly.

[jshm2]

Nope. You cannot claim self defence, against an unarmed opponent.

That would be like a terrorist killing a mob, claiming they were out to "get him" first.

[Naydyonov]

If 10 unarmed guys yelled from a short distance they'd kill you, then began running after you, there is no case for self-defense in your view?
What if an unarmed man were to break into a house and try to assault a girl alone at home there; she were to get away from him, grab a gun in a neighbouring room and shoot him upon his renewed advance? No case for self-defense because he is unarmed?

[Pterodon]

Yes you can. If an unarmed person attacks me and tries to get my gun I have every right to kill

[Pterodon]

In my ultra conservative constitutional carry state this wouldn’t even be investigated

[Celtero]

As if unarmed people aren't a threat. Maybe you're a pussy and couldn't kill someone with your hands, but it's not all that hard for a man whose growth wasn't stunted.

[Pterodon]

@Celtero no shit. If an unarmed person is coming at you to do you harm even though they know you’re armed. . .

[Celtero]

@Pterodon That's just called being a fucking moron too. "Oh, that guy has an extremely deadly weapon, better go assault him."

[Pterodon]

@Celtero bingo. They’re challenging you. This is what happened to Kyle

[Celtero]

@Pterodon Yep. And if remember correctly, some of Rosenbaum's last words captured on video were "shoot me." Comedy gold right there.

[Fuentes]

Both sides were a circus a kid standing outside with a weapon around other chaotic people putting himself in harms way & stupid SJW'S crazy looters who aren't their for a peaceful protest charge at a KID with a LOADED AR & expect to not be shot?

[Gwenhwyfar]

They’re saying it wasn’t self defense. That’s what the prosecution always says when the defense claims self defense.

[boggboss]

What do u mean? Its still somthing u have to be able to prove thats what's happening now

[boggboss]

There was enough footage to show the events lucky enough from whatbit shows it looks like everything was above bored

[Celtero]

It is, leftists are just butthurt when you kill their goons.

[legalboxers]

he clearly was coached to do that stunt just so they can get a mistrial..

and all the keyboard warriors who got their education from Judge Judy, Pirro chime in
3..
2..
1..
and GO!!!

[SmokinAces2000]

Going to a whole different state with a gun looking for trouble doesn’t sound like self defense to me

[Fuentes]

Right both sides were stupid af

[QuietRunner]

While he made a foolish decision to go to the Kenosha, Wisconsin

He was only acting in self-defense.

He was attacked by violent individuals and a mob

Say and remember his name David Dorn

[Anonymous]

A 17 year old shouldn't be carrying a gun. And he wasn't protecting anything when it happened.

And the footage is clear, he shot then

[malwins]

i didn't recogniz whim in a video lol

[Opinion Owner]

Do u wear glasses?

[Wise4myage]

I think he's gonna get off, because that prosecuting attorney is a dumb ass.

[Wise4myage]

The liberal media tried and convicted him before they even knew the facts.

[Better_off_here]

this is a white privilege as its best. he will get off and he will be hailed as a king for those republicans.

[Naydyonov]

The men he shot were all white. What are you talking about?

[Sabretooth]

@Naydyonov their color is irrelevant. if he was black... they'd want him dead.

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth I don't see the relevance of color, minus calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist or mentioning white privilege.
As none of the people shot were non-white, even with a pro-white court, would the court not be neutral, as both shooter & shot were white?

[Sabretooth]

@Naydyonov remember the central park 5?

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth I don't know what that is

[Sabretooth]

@Naydyonov https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48609693

[DamnFoxCat]

@Naydyonov don't forget one was a 5x convicted child molester

[Sabretooth]

@DamnFoxCat that is admissable. An attempt to try to muddy the waters.

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth Can't open the link. GaG has been strange since I've gotten on it again. Things aren't working constantly

[Sabretooth]

@Naydyonov basically a woman in central park was raped and beaten. a group of black kids were found guilty... thing is, there was no real evidence tying them to them to the crime... they were coerced by the cops. they were denied justice for a long time with people defending Rittenhouse wanting them dead.

[DamnFoxCat]

@Sabretooth did you know convicted felons aren't aloud to own guns and he had a pistol in his hand.

[Sabretooth]

@DamnFoxCat again, irrelevant. Besides, only one of those shot had a gun.

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth Then it was injustice. Based off what evidence did they determine their "guilt"?

[Sabretooth]

@Naydyonov their skin color. the DNA didn't match any of them. I think I speak for us all when I say that we're ALL sick and of talking and about race... it's a broken record that keeps repeating itself. it was so easy to paint those black boys as a vicious group of black boys... it's what so many of this country have been conditioned to believe. let's look at Kyle Rittenhouse. He crossed state lines and obtained an assault weapon and went to menace people and play GI Joe. there is a racial component here.

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth 3/3 people shot were white. Prosecutors, unable to prove it wasn't in self-defense, have slapped a dozen minor charges, hoping something will stick.
Reading about the Central Park 5 I see a few things:
#1. They had indeed committed numerous other crimes that night. — Not something which helps them in their denial of rape. Had they committed no crimes at all, it'd have been much more believable that they also didn't commit this crime. So it was from the get-go a very imperfect setup for them.
#2. They did confess to committing the crime. Obviously, it seems to have been under great duress. Nevertheless, it is a very dangerous thing to do: first to confess to the crime, then to retract it.

In general, common factors are the following:
No physical evidence properly connected these boys to the rape. No video evidence showed Rittenhouse acting not in self-defense. The police pressured the boys to confess to a crime they didn't commit. Prosecutors pressured Rittenhouse to confess to wanting to kill people.

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth In Rittenhouse's case, he is now being charged for not wanting to kill anyone. Basically, because he didn't want to kill anyone but did, he acted recklessly. So had he confessed to wanting to kill someone, prosecutors would push for murder or some equivalent charge. As he confessed to not wanting to kill anybody, prosecutors are using that against him to say he acted in a reckless fashion by having killed two of his attackers.

In both cases, you have public pressure to convict the arrested regardless of evidence.
In the 1989 case, race may well have been a factor; probably was. Though the jury was far from being all-white. In Rittenhouse's case, because he is white, he has been called a white supremacist, which automatically paints him as the bad guy, as we live in a society which is not accepting of white supremacists. Despite 3/3 being shot being white, he has been labeled a white supremacist. Where is the evidence race had anything to do with this shooting?
So, incidentally, race was a factor in both cases, just having different effects. In both cases, a desire to convict of anything (1989 — by police & the public, 2021 — by the DA & the public) is a strong feature.

[Sabretooth]

@Naydyonov he said he wanted to kill people he thought were shoplifters prior. we have one video of him ganging up on some girl. you don't take the steps he did unless you intent to start something. no one is saying that the killings were racially motivated (no clue why people keep insisting otherwise) is the issue here is how both cases are handled and perceived.

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth Perception: the media & Democrats hate him, average person dislikes him at best.
Looking at past history, all 3 attackers had criminal records. So by the same logic, they too planned on violence based on their history.

[Sabretooth]

@Naydyonov that is an unprovable assumption based on irrelevant information that--while true--was only designed to muddy the waters.

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth How is attributing race to Rittenhouse not muddying the waters?

[Sabretooth]

@Naydyonov because of the treatment.

[Naydyonov]

@Sabretooth
So, saying that Rittenhouse being white and the supposed legal advantage this gives him is acceptable. Saying that these 5 kids had actually committed other crimes, therefore this would have negatively influenced the perception of their innocence in a case involving a more serious crime is unacceptable?

You can't have it both ways. Equally, considering the media spent a year labelling Rittenhouse as a domestic terrorist, white supremacist, vigilante, murderer, etc, how can the argument of public pressure, which existed with the Central Park 5, not be made here?

[grega239]

Self defense is allowed. But he's the wrong gender, race and political persuasion amd is therefore guilty in the eye's of the woke mob

[OddBeMe]

That what the trial will decide moron. There’s not some higher power that labels “self defense” for us.

[Miristheiss]

Yeah... that is when there is no video showing it all.
When the police, DA can literally watch the video... a mob chasing this guy down the street (he is running away... NOT shooting), the mob knocks him down on the ground (still NOT shooting), then several go at him while on the ground (one is shown on video to have a gun themselves), then he proceeds to shoot the 3 that are coming at him.

Only those with agendas would say... go to trial, he is a criminal.
Anyone with common sense can clearly see with the magic of sight by watching the actual video of the event that a mob was attacking him.

Pretty common sense stuff.
If the video showed him just walking along alone and then aim his weapon and shooting at other close by that were minding their own business I'd agree he should be tried.

[OddBeMe]

@Miristheiss there’s no clause that says “unless there’s video”. There’s lots of other questions ro consider too. Like illegally carrying a gun, walking into a riot and not expecting to be hit by a skateboard.

[Juxtapose]

It doesn't matter why he brought the gun, he had to use it to defend himself and that's what this is about.

If I bring a gun illegally into Chuck-E-Cheese and end up shooting somebody trying to kill me, bringing the gun in the Chuck-E-Cheese illegally is very irrelevant.

[Shawn411]

He'll be able to walk free claiming SELF DEFENSE when he should of bein playing his video game 🎮 now 2 lives are gone.

[joeldalton]

good riddance. society is better off without them.

[exitseven]

@joeldalton I usually do not condone such comments but I will give you a pass on this one.

[joeldalton]

@exitseven I don't recall needing your approval.

[Pterodon]

It is. You just have a sick fucked up liberal DA that doesn’t believe in self defense

[Pterodon]

This is why voting is important

[Amur8711]

It worries me how much the left tried changing statements, filming the jury, and the FBI with holding evidence!

[Nick473]

They just wanna use him to race-bate. There is no justice anymore

[anylolone]

Self defense is always allowed, it's the judicial system that loses authority.

[LegendaryIcon]

wasn't self defense

don't let anyone, including republicucks tell you it was self defense

[Celtero]

Self defense against convicted child rapist, woman beater and rapist, and a drunk driving-burglarizing felon with a gun.

[LegendaryIcon]

rittenhouse, yeah. that's who he is

[Celtero]

Nah bud, the people he sent to hell. Facts.

[LegendaryIcon]

no dude. it was him

[Texas_guy]

Self defense is allowed. But you have to prove that’s what it was

[Reijen]

I think the deal is was he justified shooting Rosenbaum.

[BeMuse]

Chains are considered deadly weapons... There is no question, just politics...

[Anonymous]

The left doesn't agree with self defense unless it protects them.

[Anonymous]

Is there any proof he acted in self defence like a recording?
Some people can lie about acting in self defence

[Andres77]

There's LOTS of video proof.

[Opinion Owner]

@Andres77 Can you send me a link?

[Andres77]

Just YouTube it. I've been watching videos on this for the last year.
There are so many.

[Opinion Owner]

@Andres77 I cannot be bothered to youtube it.

[Andres77]

Well if you don't take the effort to find truth on your own but expect things to be spoon fed to you...
Bottom line he was being attacked while he was trying to help. He killed the fukkrs that were trying to hurt him.
He had a history of working with police and firefighters and paramedics for years prior and his job was as a lifeguard.
There was verifiable evidence that he did help put out fires and render medical aid.
He has a good heart.
He tried to turn himself in immediately after the shootings.
The cops were freaked out and turned him away so he went home and within THE HOUR he turned himself in to the police in his hometown 40 miles away.
He had nothing to hide.
He fucked up by having the gun at his age, granted. His intentions were good but he was seen as easy prey by a mob and two guys are dead, just as they should be. A third guy is maimed for life but he's lucky he's not dead because he admitted under oath before the jury on Tuesday, I saw him, that he was shot WHILE pointing a gun at Kyle while Kyle was trying to get up after being hit in the head with a rock.
Kyle should get convicted of being under age having a gun and reckless something or other but he DID act in self defense.
He should not be convicted of the actual shootings.
How the fuck do rhe rioters get away with so much destruction and murder but one kid trying to do the right thing defends himself and he will be made up pay?

[Opinion Owner]

@Andres77 if what you are writing to be is true than I think he shouldn’t be charged

[Andres77]

Like I said, he shouldn't have had the gun but if he'd been a few months older then he did nothing wrong.

[Andres77]

I've watched the case all year.
I've seen the videos Many times.
This was a naive kid that really just wanted to help.
There are already reports that rioters are being bussed close so if he's acquitted more trouble will start.
Cops are preparing.
The prosecutor knows he has no case so he's trying to piss this judge off and have a mistrial declared.
If it's declared a mistrial "with prejudice" then the prosecution can't try him again.
Prosecutor is on a tightrope.

[Opinion Owner]

@Andres77 I am going to take a guess and assume the case is getting a lot of media attention because the people he shot were not white. Am I right?

[Andres77]

No, two dead white dudes and another dumbsss white dude he shot his bicep off.
It's getting a lot of press because they're trying to say that after months of destroying cities and looting and murders for which no one was ever prosecuted the mob tried to run down a 17 year old boy who was armed.
They don't give a fuq about all the crime the left committed, this little white boy had the sheer audacity to defend himself.
That's why he's on trial.

[Opinion Owner]

@Andres77 okay we’ll just wait and see what the outcome is. Hopefully he will get off the hook

[Andres77]

He still fucked up and should get convicted for the weapon charge but that should be misdemeanor and should see lots of community service but no felony should come out of this.

[Opinion Owner]

@Andres77 it’s the judges choice at the end of the day

[Andres77]

If he's guilty is the Jury's decision, judge is there to ensure the lawyers abide by the law and maintain order in the court.
Judge will give out the punishment once the jury has decided what charges stick.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Self-defence? Lmao💀💀

[DCooper]

He wasn't wearing his mask.

[Twalli]

That's the question. Was it self-defense?

[888theGreat]

He is about to go free

[Nachowedgie]

Apparently according to the left its not

[FunkyMonkee]

No idea! Who is he?

[ManHater]

It is.

[jimmy2]

He giulty