Kyle Rittenhouse from bullied teen, to Kenosha Killer ?

Totally false.

He was being attacked and it is a shame you lack the ability or desire to even research into what happened.

Here he is just about to be attacked by a armed "peaceful protester."



And the result.



As normal, you don't understand what's happening in the real world and just spout the drivel you have learned from watching the MSM.

But that doesn't work anymore, your lies shall be exposed every time you post them.

 

They threw stuff at him, hit him, kicked him, slammed a skateboard on his head. Who the hell goes out of their way to chase down a man with a gun, who is moving away from you in haste, because all you want to do is essentially steal his rifle from him? That does not make much sense, but is that what you are going with? Who the hell would allow a violent stranger take possession of your loaded rifle??? Seriously!!!???

 

Ding Ding

 

Of course he will try to keep someone away from his rifle. Still Kyle should have been there is the first place and I still firmly believe that Kyle will likely get away with "murder". If you really cared about Kyle as a person and not a political pro Trump statement you would be concerned with his mental and emotional future. Kyle appears to be mentally and emotionally damaged goods based on his history and his act of committing what amounts to "murder". Trump fans are using Kyle and nothing else.

You can launch into a string of "WHAT ABOUT......WHAT ABOUT WHAT ABOUT..." but two wrongs do not make a right.

As for pedophiles I do not care if a pedophile is executed in fact that is the preferred punishment for such bacteria. The point is execution of pedophiles should be legal and not by an APPARENTLY entally and emotionally unstable teenager.

 

Ah, still trying to bash the minor. got it.

 

If one cannot fight the facts, bash the victim.

 

Back to bashing the minor again. Wasn't it you who tried to scold me yesterday because I called you out for doing this before? What's the point here? You said you weren't attacking the child to me yesterday, and yet, here you are today doing just that again? Calling the kid "entally unstable" and "emotionally unstable" seems pretty stark evidence that you really have it bad for this kid, huh?

And it still seems super problematic for you that you can watch others attacking the kid and still call what he did "murder". Really? You tried to paint him before as an "active shooter", this turns out to be baseless, but you're still here complaining that Rittenhouse's need to self defend from those who are obviously attacking him was either "mentally, or emotionally" unstable. And to compound it, you're attacking those of us who are simply pointing out what are obvious facts to you as somehow being politically motivated. That really seems to be your narrative here. You're upset why again? that a night of perfectly good arson and property destruction was somehow marred by this? That the destruction of or punishment of folks in Kenosha was somehow interrupted by someone you find enraging? So, as you suggest, two wrongs, and all, and now this is your attempt at the triple crown?

 

He's 17, not 7.

 

So, are you arguing that he isn't a minor?

 

Lol. No, I'm saying your hyperbole is fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

People don't escape criticism because they are minors, especially a 17 year old. I joined the Navy at 17. The kid is responsible for his actions, regardless of state law covering age of majority.

 

LOL... the characterization meets a legal standard. There wasn't any need to otherwise be hyperbolic. As for fallacious, that seems to be your world, not mine.

 

Sure he is. And it was self defense.

I wonder, though. Are Americans responsible for their own actions? Because Democrats seem to constantly claim that certain Americans aren't.

 

What? There is a legal standard for bashing? Funny.

 

17 is a minor.

 

So what? He's pudgy, too. Should we mention that?

 

LOL.. run away.. typical. And yes, there are legal standards the describe bashing as well. (perhaps you're aware of libel).. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself. And truly funny is that called on making a snarky definition comment, shown you were ignoring an actual legal standard, your response is change the subject? That's rich.

 

Obviously you felt the need to, is any more useless bashing we can expect from you?

Or are you done with making yourself look like an idiot?

 

Actually it is pathetic and only serves to demonstrate the level of intelligence possessed by most liberals.

 

Where did I say "what about" anything?

You think Kyle should have not helped to protect a person's business? The police thought otherwise. There was a livestream running that night, and at about 11:30 PM the police gave Rittenhouse a bottle of water and said "We appreciate you guys, we really do."

It's really simple, the thugs chased Rittenhouse down, attacking him along the way, assaulted him, and tried to take his weapon away. Everything we have seen shows that he did not murder anyone, he was engaging in self defense from a mob of people who were relentlessly attacking him and trying to take his weapon.

 

7, or 17, he's still a minor, so why belabor the fact?.

 

You can see in that still shot, that the guy has his pistol pointed directly at Rittenhouse's head, he's lucky he only got shot in the arm.

Just a few seconds earlier, that same guy with the pistol raised his hands in submission, and Rittenhouse retreats, by moving the muzzle of his rifle to the side. But one second later the guy sees an opprotunity and lunges at Rittenhouse and we see him pointing that pistol at his head.

So even when a guy has a pistol in his right hand, Rittenhouse still retreated. Every time he could retreat, he did. Every time those thugs cornered him, or became a physical threat they got shot.

 

Lol. I'm not bashing anyone. I find the claim that being a minor is somehow significant to be spurious at best.

 

Sure. If you're in arms reach. But chase him a couple hundred yards?
If you have to chase someone to exercise your right to self -defense, you aren't acting in self-defense.

Your opinion here is legally irrelevant.

Self-defense - unless you can provide evidence that the state can use to prove otherwise.

 

I never said that my opinion is legally binding but I have a right to opine just as you have . We both have a right to disagree with with each other about issues and we seem to be doing that. Hey ths is a debate forum.

 

Just so long as you understand your opinion re; where Kyle should/should not be has no bearing of the legalities involved.