Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

MissChief said:
So now you're saying the victims history needs to be taken into account and this somehow justifies their killing? You should look through all the people that died on 9/11 and find some who's murder was justified because of their past too!
Click to expand...

Wow, you went there.. well done. You know full well that's completely different.

Sadly moderators are not allowed to put users on ignore!!
 
Screeeech said:
I'm not gonna argue with the Jury's decision, they sat through it and discussed it - I think based on that it's a fair verdict.

Hopefully all the lunatic ultra lefties don't tear the town up tonight..
Click to expand...

Nah, everyone is going to getting their Xmas shopping done early and at 5 finger discount prices!
 
MissChief said:
So now you're saying the victims history needs to be taken into account and this somehow justifies their killing? You should look through all the people that died on 9/11 and find some who's murder was justified because of their past too!
Click to expand...

Whaaaat? :cry:
 
dowie said:
LOL no I didn't say that, learn to read.
Click to expand...
These weren't normal people, every single person he shot or shot at seems to have been a criminal - whether it was someone who bummed small boys and was let out of a mental ward that morning or someone who was into kidnapping and abusing women.

That's exactly what you said. Right there. You're implying in some way because they had a criminal history that somehow it was justified or they deserved it?
 
MissChief said:
These weren't normal people, every single person he shot or shot at seems to have been a criminal - whether it was someone who bummed small boys and was let out of a mental ward that morning or someone who was into kidnapping and abusing women.

That's exactly what you said. Right there. You're implying in some way because they had a criminal history that somehow it was justified or they deserved it?
Click to expand...

Again, learn to read... where was that implied?

Try thinking about context, this isn't hard, what does the sentence before that one deal with?

Normal people, the implication (literally spelled out for you in the line before) being that most normal people wouldn't chase and attack someone carrying an AR-15. It's not that hard to follow, go back to the post and read more carefully...

dowie said:
don't go and start fights with people carrying AR15s is something most normal people can manage to do.

These weren't normal people though, every single person he shot or shot at seems to have been a criminal -[...]
Click to expand...
 
MissChief said:
These weren't normal people, every single person he shot or shot at seems to have been a criminal - whether it was someone who bummed small boys and was let out of a mental ward that morning or someone who was into kidnapping and abusing women.

That's exactly what you said. Right there. You're implying in some way because they had a criminal history that somehow it was justified or they deserved it?
Click to expand...

They did deserve it, but because of their aggressive actions not their background.

Don't attack someone with a firearm and you wont get shot, its not even complex.
 
MissChief said:
The implication is there by even making the statement. 'these were bad people!' it doesn't really matter does it?
Click to expand...

Look, you've got some issues with reading comprehension so I suggest using the quote function - the statement was these weren't normal people, if you deliberately misquote it then it's going to make even less sense to you in the context of the sentence immediately before it and you're already quite bad at not just reading that post but even failing to get basic facts about this whole case correct.
 
MissChief said:
The implication is there by even making the statement. 'these were bad people!' it doesn't really matter does it?
Click to expand...
Past behaviour can at times be an accurate predictor of future behaviour. Considering how many people were there at the time, don't you find it odd that the only people involved in attacking kyle have some sort of criminal activity in their past.


Also good he was found not guilty. Glad to see his life wasn't ruined for political gains.
 
MissChief said:
Oh absolutely, but their history shouldn't matter. I've blocked him anyway, I think the only person on here I have.
Click to expand...

No one said their criminal history was important re: the self-defence claim itself FFS, stop making up arguments that weren't made. It was mentioned in relation to their behaviour - most people wouldn't start attacking someone with an AR-15, some crazy paedo guy with a literal death wish (fresh out of the hospital that moring after a suicide attempt) might though...
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Past behaviour can at times be an accurate predictor of future behaviour. Considering how many people were there at the time, don't you find it odd that the only people involved in attacking kyle have some sort of criminal record in their past.


Also good he was found not guilty. Glad to see his life wasn't ruined for political gains.
Click to expand...
There's a reason past criminal history isn't allowed to be disclosed to Jurists.
 
MissChief said:
The implication is there by even making the statement. 'these were bad people!' it doesn't really matter does it?
Click to expand...

You need to put all that in context.

THe whole case was shifted so that it all hinged on provocation by Rittenhouse.. and framed as if he was the original aggressor..

The criminal exploits (and backed up by all the video evidence shown) of the people killed/injured is a factor in all this..

Who was most likely to really have started this and been the aggressor?
Rittenhouse, someone that was a lifeguard, known for helping others, cleaning graffiti off walls, putting our dumpster fires (ironically what got him in this situation!), Or
Rosenbaum et al, all with criminal pasts, some very violent, and all the video evidence showing their behaviour during the riot and then chasing after Rittenhouse?

Even though their criminal pasts wasn't heard by the Jury doesn't mean we can't put 2+2 and come up with 4..
 
MissChief said:
That's exactly what you said. Right there. You're implying in some way because they had a criminal history that somehow it was justified or they deserved it?
Click to expand...

You have the wrong way around they were not shot because of their history but beacuse of their actions and words on the night.

But the common theme is that all thoosen shot were already nasty pieces of work being a bunch of variously racist, violent, sex offenders.

Hence these peope are not 'normal people' comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom