Kyle Rittenhouse Book Sparks Uproar

the jury believed it because the evidence supported it.

Yeah I imagine killing a person no matter what vital records come they are, will follow you to the end of your days. I'm glad I haven't had to and I hope I never have to.

That doesn't mean I'm not carrying a gun

 

If you think Kyle murdered the people who attacked him.

You are pro crime. I don't see how you can support three felons attempting to murder a 17 year old but not the riot.

 

No doubt.

I have a permit, but I dont carry everywhere, - too inconvenient. IMO having one in the car and several in the house is enough, but to each his own. I know people who feel naked without one.

 

I think you responded to the wrong post

 

As I said MAGA hero.
You didn't need to reaffirm it for me

 

I have to apologize I read what I typed and it was horribly cryptic and I should have proof read it and I'm glad you got to jist of it.

I wouldn't say I feel naked without it because there's certain places I have to go that I can't be armed and I can't have it in my vehicle.

But I tend toward carrying it otherwise. Just like I carry a fire extinguisher in my car I've just seen too many cars burst into flames on the road. But I also carry a glass punch on my keyring. I read that story about that fellow that burned to death in his car because he couldn't open the door from the inside and if I had the capacity to prevent that I'm going to.

Again I carry these things and hopes that I never have to use them but if I do I take solace in the fact that they're there.

 

No I responded to the correct post.

Earlier in the thread you said Kyle murdered these people so you think someone should be allowed to attack you and possibly even kill you and you not be allowed to defend yourself.

That's what it means when you accuse Kyle of murder that means you don't believe in the right to life.

 

Just wondering. Your counterattack is unnecessary.

 

Do you suppose if Rittenhouse was wearing a BLM shirt and armed with an AR-15 that the pedophile and domestic abuser would have tried to stop him??LOL Fresh Air must think so. They were just good citizens!

 

The only way to argue that KR did not act in self-defense is to argue the people he shot had the right to chase him down and attempt to harm him.

Those critical of KR likely believe this is the case, but aren't silly enough to state it out loud.

 

Hypothetical scenarios are not an argument because they are fictional. Facts are what matter.

What matters is he was there and so were the people trying to kill him.

 

A matter of opinion....

 

I never, in this thread said murder. Not any other thread either.
You did respond to the wrong post.
Or you read something wrong, or just flat out making stuff up.

 

Anthony Huber was the threat. He was already down. Moral of the story is don't carry an illegal firearm in public and point it at minors.

Rittenhouse wasn't an active shooter. And nobody says arm criminals and have people who are not allowed to possess firearms to perform security functions with firearms. And definitely nobody says criminals should illegally arm themselves and join an angry mob attacking a kid. Well, maybe one person does...

Nobody did. Remember, this entire thing started because a violent mob was angry that Rittenhouse put out a fire they had started. That's why he was being chased and attacked.

 

I think the thought process is that he went there to stop rioters from destroying property but the left wanted people to be afraid of essentially their ground force.

 

So you are pro pedophile?

 

I responded to the correct post. You used the word killer.

Can't have Kyle taking away your precious pedophiles and woman beaters huh?

 

There are too many guns out there here in the states to pretend only non criminals carry them, so thats irrelevant assume everyones armed. Next I go toward danger, does having a criminal background nullify my heroism?

Do you care if the person who downed an active shooter has a criminal background?

 

when most people are considering a run for office, the first step is publishing a book about themselves

Rittenmouse may be getting ready to enter politics

who knows?? maybe trump picks him as a running mate

I read awhile back in a different thread this idea for their campaign slogan

"Trump/Rittenmouse ..they are gunning for the Whitehouse"

 

My criticism is him writing the book about the events on that fateful night, similar to what OJ Simpson tried to do after his murder trial acquittal. Based on his own statements, he is focusing that night on the book and will probably infuse the political BS that went with the trial to begin with such as "being a victim of liberal media." He has affiliated himself with unscrupulous characters who are aligned with white nationalism, like Nick Fuentes, and so forth.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/kyle-rittenhouse-book-acquitted-kenosha-shooting-rcna126013

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-a-social-media-row/articleshow/105365164.cms

 

That is what happens with the chaos. The events of that evening is that he shot somebody, people heard the shots, saw a person with a firearm, saw two people shot, one dead and not armed, and put two and two together to use "citizens arrest." He claims he was trying to turn himself in to police. But other theories include he was going to the very same police officers who approved what he was doing, him thinking they would be friendly.

If police wanted to apprehend him, they would have demanded he put his firearm down, lay on the ground, hands and legs spread, and emphasize he does not move on frickin muscle. But the police did not do that. They just saw him and did absolutely nothing.

 

Assuming they thought he was a killer trying to get away (which must have been what they thought), wouldn't they have the right to attempt a citizens arrest? I think so. And yet at the same time KR has the right to defend himself. Of course its foolish to chase a guy with an AR15 who has already demonstrated he'll use it. Either way, that's how it played out, and 3 people got shot, and the verdict was "not guilty".

Lesson: Don't chase an armed guy even if you are 100% convinced he is a criminal.

 

Everyone had a right to be there to protest or do whatever. It is when a few started to damage private property at that used car lot just a block away.

My person feeling is that Rittenhouse was a business standing outside trying to play soldier boy or cop even though that very same business did not want that type of help. He then walked off to try to do something and that is when the **** hit the fan. He shot an unarmed person, killed an unarmed person, he even admitted that on the stand. The other problem was the judge allowed the defense to call the victims of the shooting "rioters" which prejudiced the jury from the very onset of the trial.

 

Not really. Like most words in English, boy can have multiple connotations. The contest here means a yonker, a young person, probably not even alive when the OJ Simpson trial commenced.

 

Anytime when a nonlaw enforcement person is shooting people while not committing a crime, the first instinct is to call it an "active shooter" situation, which this was.

There were two confrontations. The first confrontation was near the used car lot where Rosenbaum was shot. Rosenbaum was not armed. His friend was, who shot in the air, and was later charged wih disorderly conduct with a deadly firearm. Rosenbaum was killed. He then fled because people near the used car lot heard the shots and turned their attention onto the person with the long rifle. Then then fled, and that is where the second confrontation happened. That is where the second person was shot, who had a skateboard and he claims was trying to "turn himself in."

the main problem with the trial is that the people who were shot were really the ones on trial, not KR. And that is why KR was acquitted. This is similar to rape trials where the woman was on trial, not the person who raped her allegedly based on how she looked, what she wore, the perfume she had on, etc.