Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
5,979
Called what? He is a child. That is my problem with all this. If American states want to allow people to kill others in self defence that is their business. My issue is allowing children to walk the streets with a weapon of war.

Dealt with this nonsence already...

I have considerable doubt in the implied suggestion that would have been much more at ease with the situation if the only difference was that Kyle Rittenhouse was an older adult rather than a 17-year old teenager.

It's much like the 'crossing state lines' and 'wearing gloves' stuff which appears just to be noise to get away from the key facts.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
5,979

He shot only white people including a racist, a child rapists and a domestic abuser.

Go fund me pulled his page for raising money for his defence. POTUS defamed him by calling him a white supremacist. The VP had previously put out her support for bail funds that were there to have rioters released.

Left with few people who would take his corner a dodgy attention seeking lawyer took on his case and secured his bail.

He the blew of some steam in a bar and flashed the OK symbol which morons had been trolled by internet **** posters into believing was a white power symbol.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,377
Location
Krypton
Nope, notice that is a screenshot not the original tweet...it's been manipulated to make it look like that is the focus.

The original tweet had a video, which did show a brief snippet of Rittenhouse, but was about Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists like the proud boys and militia groups

if you've a video embedded within tweet talking about white supremacists and then a image flashes up of an individual with a line that says "as we saw in Kenosha" you are labelling that person a white supremacist..

anyway, seems Biden isn't to happy that he's been found not guilty.

 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
5,979
Nope, notice that is a screenshot not the original tweet...it's been manipulated to make it look like that is the focus.

The original tweet had a video, which did show a brief snippet of Rittenhouse, but was about Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists like the proud boys and militia groups


I'll give you that Biden probably did not tweet this himself, as we all know his cognitive functions having been lacking for some time and he's basically a political puppet now, but seriously are you going to suggest that Rittenhouse's inclusion in this video was not to say he was a white supremacist?
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,278
Location
Surrey
if you've a video embedded within tweet talking about white supremacists and then a image flashes up of an individual with a line that says "as we saw in Kenosha" you are labelling that person a white supremacist..

anyway, seems Biden isn't to happy that he's been found not guilty.


If you ignore, on purpose, what the video actually says, of course you can make it say what err you want.

For instance, let's take out all the vowels, not the video makes no sense and Biden is trying to sound like the orange guy before him, in capable of making a proper sentence.

But that would be disingenuous.

Keep pretending you aren't able to remember simple words from a video, and everyone will keep pretending you're being rather simple.

Do you want us to type out the words directly from the video for you, then put them in full cap words? Is and then maybe tweet them. Is that how you're used to being told stuff?

It really is so sinple.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,278
Location
Surrey
I'll give you that Biden probably did not tweet this himself, as we all know his cognitive functions having been lacking for some time and he's basically a political puppet now, but seriously are you going to suggest that Rittenhouse's inclusion in this video was not to say he was a white supremacist?

If not a militia vigilant what was rotten house doing there? Didn't rotten house just argue in court, he literally went there to defend and be a militia?

Remind me why in your opinion why rotten house was there
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,377
Location
Krypton
If you ignore, on purpose, what the video actually says, of course you can make it say what err you want.

For instance, let's take out all the vowels, not the video makes no sense and Biden is trying to sound like the orange guy before him, in capable of making a proper sentence.

But that would be disingenuous.

Keep pretending you aren't able to remember simple words from a video, and everyone will keep pretending you're being rather simple.

Do you want us to type out the words directly from the video for you, then put them in full cap words? Is and then maybe tweet them. Is that how you're used to being told stuff?

It really is so sinple.
are you having a stroke?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,313
If not a militia vigilant what was rotten house doing there? Didn't rotten house just argue in court, he literally went there to defend and be a militia?

Nope. Though why are you asking that poster? You could just watch the testimony or read about it yourself. AFAIK he never claimed to be part of any militia.

His claim is that went to protect the business (at the invitation of the owners) by putting out fires etc.. and he offered medical assistance to people and there is plenty of footage of him doing just that. His weapon was carried for self defence.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,983
Location
The Land of Roundabouts
It was the right result for the charges they tried, if they had gone for a lesser option they may well have had a conviction but going full whack left them with no case. There is probably some weight to the idea the prosecution were going for a mistrial so they could try again on lesser charges. (not sure if that would be possible?!)
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
5,979
If not a militia vigilant what was rotten house doing there? Didn't rotten house just argue in court, he literally went there to defend and be a militia?

Remind me why in your opinion why rotten house was there

You like the current POTUS probably should go read what the second amendment says before making yourself looking even more childish.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,278
Location
Surrey
You like the current POTUS probably should go read what the second amendment says before making yourself looking even more childish.
The right to free speech? That is being suggested Biden should be sued for?

Maybe it's you who should go read the law before you stop looking like a fool before you keep pushing the idea that rittenhouse can now sue Biden.

But any way, not my place to stop a fool from saying foolish things. Continue as you were.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,313
It was the right result for the charges they tried, if they had gone for a lesser option they may well have had a conviction but going full whack left them with no case. There is probably some weight to the idea the prosecution were going for a mistrial so they could try again on lesser charges. (not sure if that would be possible?!)

There is also an argument that they knew full well that the case was a loser and so wanted (or at least would be happy with risking) a mistrial to save face, the decision to charge him so quickly and to basically throw the book at him + to not charge bicep boy seems very political and a knee jerk reaction to public outrage to the shootings before all the facts were known.

I mean AFAIK part of the key evidence they used as their argument re: provocation wasn't even available at the time they charged him so it's not clear what they thought they were basing the charges on at that time... seems more like they went to charge him quickly based on the outcry then sought to find whatever evidence they could to support it after.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
5,979
The right to free speech? That is being suggested Biden should be sued for?

Maybe it's you who should go read the law before you stop looking like a fool before you keep pushing the idea that rittenhouse can now sue Biden.

But any way, not my place to stop a fool from saying foolish things. Continue as you were.

Where did I talk about suing POTUS?

Did you just pull that one out of your fundament?

1st amendment right don't protect a person from being an ignorant fool.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
24,854
You like the current POTUS probably should go read what the second amendment says before making yourself looking even more childish.

right-to-bear-arms-58b8f8253df78c353c4da037.jpg
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,850
The right to free speech? That is being suggested Biden should be sued for?

Maybe it's you who should go read the law before you stop looking like a fool before you keep pushing the idea that rittenhouse can now sue Biden.

But any way, not my place to stop a fool from saying foolish things. Continue as you were.
Think you got 1st and 2nd amendment mixed up.
 
Top