Kyle Rittenhouse Book Sparks Uproar

Lol except we know he’s not innocent in some of these. He’s offered no coherent defense in the documents case, he’s just hoping to delay it.

 

What gets me is the same posters that defend Rittenhouse to no ends will defend Perry in Texas that was convicted.
They are different, but have some similarities.

 

How do you know the person you're attempting to insult is not black

 

No just your first thread you called the man a "killer" several times..... That's really not calling him a murderer.....

 

None of that would have or should have happened. It seems RWers are pretty brave sending other people's children to do their dirty work.

At 17, alone, without training nor situational awareness, is never done by LE nor the military. But feel free to make up more excuses.

 

You're right. None of that should have happened. But it did happen. And you're placing the blame in the wrong place. It was the rioters that was the reason Rittenhouse was there in the first place. Not RWers. If not for the rioters we never even would have heard of Rittenhouse because he wouldn't have felt like he needed to help prevent destruction of property. And it wasn't RWers that attacked him.

Its funny that you're placing the blame on Rittenhouse when he IS the victim. Unless you think that those rioters had some sort of right to destroy property? That they should have been allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted? Including attacking Rittenhouse?

 

The fact that he wondered around like that by himself, shows he did not have aby situational awareness whatsoever. All the other armed folks (who were vets) stayed together as a team for the obvious reasons, and the first guy who was shot by KR tried to yell and intimidate one of them the way he did with KR, and the vet just told him to piss off and then ignored him.

 

They were rioters and more! As Americans, believe it or not, we have a right to own and maintain property. Anti Capital leftists think property is there for them to destroy. Perhaps once again private citizens will defend property. Big Corporations will not however but "try that in a small town!"

 

Yes, that "Anti Capital leftist" mindset was on full display on Jan-6.

Coming to think of it, the only riot in 2020 which was about political parties was Jan-6. All the others were about other issues.

 

Yes, he shot in cold blood an unarmed women!

 

No I am not. A 17 yr old, alone, without training nor situational awareness, being sent into an area of unrest is never done in LE nor the military.

Keep making excuses for exploiting a child.

 

I haven't heard, but if you say so then it must be so,

 

Exploiting? How exactly am I doing that?

In any case, all of this is irrelevant. Shoulda, coulda, woulda's are meaningless. What happened, happened. Why are you two hollering about Rittenhouse? Why aren't you hollering about the people that put him in that situation to begin with? The rioters. The attackers. NONE of what happened excuses what they did. They are the ones to blame. Not Rittenhouse.

 

Thus, their support for gun control.

 

Yes, what happened, happened. He pleaded self-defense and the jury agreed. The verdict was no guilty. It is what it is. I dont have a problem with it.

I'm not hollering. Why are you hollering? Read my comments from yesterday if you wonder what my view in the issue is.

Help the brother out and buy his book.

 

I'll finish that sentence for them

"We will ship as soon as we can...... find a ghostwriter desperate enough to sit with this moron long enough to get his 3 hour life story"

 

Of course, but theoretically, he'd have to sit with the ghost writer for a least a few hours to mumble out his historic life story. That's more effort than most MAGA's put into grifting...

 

People on the internet board are anonymous, thus, no name, identification, or other distinguishing marks UNLESS they specify otherwise.

 

I am well aware there were rioters, but that really does not matter in the trial of a person who shot three people, wounded one and killed two others. The first person killed was not in the act of rioting when he was shot. The second person he killed was not in the act of rioting when he was shot either. Thus, the rioting should have never been part of the defense argument at the trial, to begin with, but the judge allowed it, and that prejudiced the jury.

 

At least you admit your lie/misreading.

 

One who kills, is called a killer.

Are you shocked at that definition? I certainly wouldn't call him a dancer for killing other people.

 

All three were in the riot.

One could say technically they stopped rioting to attack an individual but that is a ridiculous hair to split.

It was a valid part of the defense

 

I am hollering about who put him in that situation.

 

Neither should have been the **** stains he six feeted either.

 

BLM? People rioting in the streets? No riots no percieved need to be out there.