Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

kinetic747 said:
My bad, I thought that's what the Police are for, I didn't realize heavily armed teenagers were the answer.
Click to expand...

Thats what they should be for, but when you've got political control of them at a local level and the people in charge decide to hold them back and/or not call in the national guard then you leave things wide open for plenty of civil disorder/rioting./.. ergo some business owners took matters into their own hands and asked people to help protect their property.

Shootings happened, state/county/city looks v.bad... those in power go after the Kyle, so determined to get him that a rioter who had an illegal gun on him isn't charged for that, doensn't have his phone searched despite a search warrant being available... seemingly all so he can be a key witness in the prosecution's case.

aardvark said:
christ i hope the jury hurries up
Click to expand...

Presumably a reasonable chance of them not wanting to drag it out over the weekend so they'll maybe reach some consensus/compromise verdict today. Would be so frustrating to be waiting for a jury verdict if it actually affected your life... damn it's a Friday and they really want to go home so the holdouts finally decide to compromise on the lesser charge with a 12 year sentence, even though they think you're not guilty, as they're getting bored now and don't want more of this nonsense next week, it's Thanksgiving next week and they have plans, need to just go with it now....

Edit - actually if there is a mistrial (unlikely in trials in general but very plausible here) and it is based on the prosecution questioning Kyle's silence (a constitutional right) then it could be with prejudice even. Drone video stuff wouldn't be though and so would prompt a second trial next year if prosecutors wanted to go again (which seems likely). Of course, he hasn't ruled and there might not be a mistrial at all, or at least not at this point.
 
Last edited:
That Rittenhouse felt he had to rock up with a gun for self defense. Just shows how broken US society is. Rittenhouse is a product of that. He's not a cause of it.
 
deuse said:
He tried to shot kyle then he saw Kyle's gun pointing at him so moved his right arm to the right.
THEN. The pistol guy started to point his gun at Kyle.
Kyle was quick to see this and fired. It's that simple.

With pistol guys intention to move his gun to Kyles head. He would have killed kyle.
Click to expand...

All purely conjecture with very little basis in reality.

The only person to have shot and killed people in this whole scenario is Kyle.
 
Jono8 said:
All purely conjecture with very little basis in reality.

The only person to have shot and killed people in this whole scenario is Kyle.
Click to expand...


Tell me why the pistol guy.
Turned his gun away...but then seeing Kyle look away...pointed it back to kyles head?
 
Skunkworks said:
You're being obtuse amd you know it.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I simply do not believe it was Grosskreutz's intention to ever shoot and kill Kyle in cold blood, and i think any suggestion of that being the case is just completely wild speculation (and rather silly at that).
 
deuse said:
Tell me why the pistol guy.
Turned his gun away...but then seeing Kyle look away...pointed it back to kyles head?
Click to expand...

Well he testified under oath that he didn't intentionally point it.

But even if he lied and he did, probably to get him to surrender/disarm because he thought he was an active shooter/murderer.

Like I said, the premise that Grosskreutz's intention was just to go up to him and execute him is rather absurd.

This speaks volumes actually (about how you and others think Kyle's actions were reasonable). It's quite interesting.
 
MissChief said:
I can see it now, guilty of some minor weapons charges but not guilty of Murder or something.
Click to expand...

Come on, at least familiarise yourself with the basics before comenting, you did this yesterday too. There isn't a weapons charge for him to answer, it was legal for him to open carry a long-barreled rifle aged 17.
 
Jono8 said:
Well he testified under oath that he didn't intentionally point it.

But even if he lied and he did, probably to get him to surrender/disarm because he thought he was an active shooter/murderer.

Like I said, the premise that Grosskreutz's intention was just to go up to him and execute him is rather absurd.

This speaks volumes actually (about how you and others think Kyle's actions were reasonable). It's quite interesting.
Click to expand...


He did "intentionally point" his illegal gun...it's in the video I linked.
He lied in court until the defence showed pictures of him pointing his illegal gun at Kyle.
Why else would one turn a gun towards someone?

I'll leave you to your dreams....
 
Screeeech said:
If I turn the argument around; essentially, you're saying it's reasonable to shoot somebody who kicks you, or hits you with a skateboard, merely on the basis of what might or might not come afterwards.

I don't think that's a solid or reasonable argument to use lethal force.
Click to expand...

Dude, you really need to stop watching movies and basing them on real life. Getting clocked in the head is a perfectly reasonable grounds for lethal force.
 
Roar87 said:
They're defending a white guy who used racist language, can anyone explain that to me?
Click to expand...

It's the same logic we are seeing from some obvious troll in this thread except in real life.

It's so funny to see the Woke/Left reasoning put them in an untenable ambivalent position where you have to make up some extremely flawed logic that makes you have to pin the blame on Rittenhouse, even if it means siding with the violent paedophile racist who was only there to cause trouble (with plenty of video evidence to show his rioting and confrontations with others).. I find it hilarious.. they will eat themselves alive and that will make the world a better place!
 
Tephnos said:
Getting clocked in the head is a perfectly reasonable grounds for lethal force.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but in the end it's not for you or I to decide, it's for the jury to decide, they're the ones who have to consider the evidence and work out whether the defendant's actions were reasonable or not.
 
kinetic747 said:
My bad, I thought that's what the Police are for, I didn't realize heavily armed teenagers were the answer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom