Arizona students seek Kyle Rittenhouse removal from online nursing classes

Perhaps you need to take a class on the Constitution. You don't need to be proven guilty in a court of law to be removed from a college program. That has literally never been the case . . . ever . . . at any point in US history. So why make that **** up?

 

In what way was the first person he killed trying to kill him? Again, I initially defended him on this, but the more info that comes out, the less certain I am.

 

I'm not sure why you think the existing student protestors should transfer, especially if they have the numbers (likely) and seniority.

I would say it would be nothing for the university not to allow him on campus, vs attending online. I would also say it's not a civil right to go to a particular college...

 

Probably out getting fitted for a prosthetic arm

 

It doesn't matter really. The dude said he was going to kill him and was chasing him down. You have to assume that he plans to make good on his threat. Kyle didn't have time to make sure the guy didn't have a gun nor the chain he had just prior. When he was down, the other two guys didn't have to threaten him with the gun nor the skateboard but they did. All proven in court. At what point can you defend yourself if not when some guy pulls a gun on you or bashes you in the head with a lethal object?

 

Answer my question and then maybe I'll be inclined to answer yours.

 

Answer my question and perhaps I'll be inclined to answer yours.

 

Still

Still with this unbalanced comparison? You people just are not going to get over that he acted properly.. he went to remove graffiti, provide medical services to any one who needed them, put out fires and took a gun for self defence.. which it turns out her needed. Why do you support thugs and thuggish lives?

 

I'm talking about the first lethal shots against the first guy. The guy that threw a bag at him. If he really did verbally threaten to kill him and/or had used a weapon like a chain, then I agree with you about the shots being justified.

 

ASU students =bunch of racists

 

And you still can't draw a conclusion from all the write ups to date, that's odd?

I guess if Australian overlords hadn't stripped Australians of guns and their right to bare arms they wouldn't actually know how and when to use them!

 

Not sure what right you are referring to, but it could be a problem for the school to not let him in after accepting him. Lot of kids get expelled from schools, but there has to be a reason, but Kyle has not given them any reason yet, unless they can argue they accepted him by mistake.

Both were found not-guilty in the court of law. We were not happy down here when OJ moved to South Florida. They both carry "social baggage" stemming from their trials, be it fair or not.

 

Funny that they, however, didn't kill anyone. If they were there to kill, they could have surely found easier targets than someone parading with an AR15 around their neck, considering that two of them were unarmed.

 

An endorsement of mob rule.

It would not be nothing, actually. He has already been accepted to the university. Unless his actions violate the code of conduct (very likely a no), then he actually does have a "civil right" to be treated equally under the contractual agreement between institution sand student: The college can't just say "we don't like you so get the hell out." And again, this is where these students opposing him are showing their true stupidity and narcissism. I hope none of them are pre-law. Based on the names of these groups the presume to speak for, I'll say it's a safe bet they are not.

 

All that came out in the trial

 

One was armed with a blunt instrument, one was armed with a firearm, one was armed with fists. All are capable of causing death or GBH. And the dead child rapist.. well don't want to think of what he was "armed" with.

 

One was unarmed. And had just prior been seen swinging a chain around. The others had a gun and a skateboard.

 

You don't need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law for a University to decide that you have violated their code of conduct. I hope none of the people pretending otherwise are pre-law.

 

Source? Did he still have the chain or any other weapon? If so, I agree with you. If all he had was a bag of clothes, then I don't agree. From what I've read from the Rittenhouse defense, he heard a gun shot from elsewhere and assumed that it came from this guy, who didn't actually have a gun.

 

would these snowflakes also be scared if it was a woman who had an abortion? Probably not.. killing unborn babies is OK but defending yourself from attacking child rapists and wife beaters is bad.. liberals are a strange bunch..

 

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2020/09/09/joseph-rosenbaum-chain/

 

If you think that every woman who has an abortion should be tried for a violent felony, then it looks like you are part of the "strange bunch." I'm not so sure that everyone he shot/shot at was a child rapist or a wife beater, but there is no way in **** he knew that, even if they were, rendering it useless as a defense.

 

More defamation. You're really not learning this lesson are you. Not a question. Answer your own question. How many folks were assaulted by the mob you seem to want to protect?

 

I am speculating, but I would be very surprised if "being acquitted" is a violation of the code of conduct. If it were, they'd be losing most of Fraternity Row every year.

 

Did Rittenhouse know about this chain and was the guy still armed with it at the time of the shooting?