Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Jono8 said:
I have. Multiple times.

Its quite a simple concept. A concept the prosecutor literally just explained a moment ago.
Click to expand...

Nope, you haven't you've just left the questions and are deflecting, again.

Replying with nonanswers three times in a row instead of simply answering just illustrates how farcical your position is - vague assertions and unclear arguments you can't explain and you have to continually evade any challenges to with deflection and "you don't understand" etc...
 
Jono8 said:
You clearly didnt. Hence the stupid questions about it.
Click to expand...

All this effort into quickly throwing in a silly reply without actually saying anything just to avoid actually answering or providing any argument to back up your assertions... more deflection Jono in action.
 
Jono8 said:
It was a simple concept that you didn't understand. Own it.
Click to expand...

If it's so simple then please do go ahead and answer/explain what your point was?

Suppose the skateboarder had (in his eyes) [valid reason] to attack Kyle then what?

Also, can we have an answer yet on the other point re: the apparent conflicting assertions you made with no arguments to support them yet?

[in b4 deflection Jono strikes again with another excuse to avoid answering]
 
Tefal said:
Ph no in this case insurance covered it.

Except for those busineses that deliberately undersinsuredto save money

So my bad
Click to expand...
Do you have a source, because: https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/28/kenosha-auto-dealer-says-insurer-wont-cover-riot-damage/

Ultimately, the point is you shouldn't have the mentality that "oh the police/insurance will deal with it", that's more of the mentality in the UK, but not in the US were self reliance is far more common, especially on defending yourself.

He was allowed to be there, in the same way a woman with a short skirt is allowed to be out a night.

Don't like his rifle? Tough, he wasn't breaking the law, and that's what matters. You can't put people in prison because they did something you don't like, only when they've broken the law.
 
Longbow said:
He was allowed to be there, in the same way a woman with a short skirt is allowed to be out a night.

Don't like his rifle? Tough, he wasn't breaking the law, and that's what matters.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up the "he shouldn't have been there" arguments and I suspect many posters would flip straight to "don't victim blame" in other contexts.

+ he was attacked and in each case, he fled, that he was doing something a bit reckless/dumb by being there in the first place doesn't negate his right to self-defence.
 
dLockers said:
At what point are you allowed to attack a man with a rifle that you deem a threat? Or is only the man with the rifle who is allowed to be threatened?
Click to expand...

I hate it when I'm setting fires and vandalising property and someone has the tenacity to come and stop me, and then when I physically attack them for doing so whilst they're running away apparently they're allowed to shoot me?! What a crazy world!
 
Roar87 said:
I hate it when I'm setting fires and vandalising property and someone has the tenacity to come and stop me, and then when I physically attack them for doing so whilst they're running away apparently they're allowed to shoot me?! What a crazy world!
Click to expand...
Feels like these guys were being plenty threatening already and he didn't need to engage at all. Or is threatening behaviour exclusive of vandalism and arson?

The jury for me needs to decide at which point Kyle injected himself into a situation that made self defence a likely consequence. He did that in spadeloads IMO.

He shouldn't have been LARPing as law enforcement.
 
I mean it's probably not a good idea, in general, to try to attack someone open carrying an AR15, something you can apparently do legally in Kenosha.
 
dowie said:
I mean it's probably not a good idea, in general, to try to attack someone open carrying an AR15, something you can apparently do legally in Kenosha.
Click to expand...
It's also probably not a good idea to engage folk who are being violent and disorderly while LARPing as law enforcement.

Not even the police were silly enough to do that.
 
This part of the prosecution IS very damning.

In that the final two shots at Rosenbaum were clearly as he was already falling , and that the final "kill" shot went through the top of his back. That certainly could sway the jury into deciding that he wasn't using reasonable force.
 
Jono8 said:
This part of the prosecution IS very damning.

In that the final two shots at Rosenbaum were clearly as he was already falling , and that the final "kill" shot went through the top of his back. That certainly could sway the jury into deciding that he wasn't using reasonable force.
Click to expand...
The order of the shots weren't in evidence, so it's speculation. Also this happened within a split second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom