Topic: Prosecution’s case against Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse ... BLOWN up (Read 502 times)

Back on planet Earth there's video of George Flloyd being murdered.  The cop that murdered him was convicted of murder and is now in prison.

There's video of the Jan 6th attack, you can watch the people beating the shit out of the cops and breaking into the Capital during a joint session of congress. 

Since then we've learned a bunch of them said they were hoping to have the chance to kill various democrats before traveling from all over the country to Washington and breaking into the capital with deadly weapons.  Afterwards, many of them confirmed that they would have killed various Democrats had they been given the chance.

I dare you to contemplate how you would react to a BLM protest during the Certification of a Trump victory that turned into a violent attack on the capital where they beat the shit out of a bunch of cops and ransacked a bunch of republicans private offices.

Now imagine that there's evidence that a bunch of black guys said they couldn't wait to kill Kevin McCarthy before breaking into the capital with guns.

Now imagine that after the attack, the black guys told authorities that if they would have found Kevin McCarthy on the day of the attack, they would have killed him.

Now imagine what you would say to me if I said "The J6 attacks, or "insurrection" as it is called, were a bunch of toothless Biden supporters armed with Biden hats and selfie sticks trespassing on the Capitol building. Absolutely terrifying."

Alex Jones said initially that Sandy Hook was 'real' and as the corp/gov media was reporting.  I know because I tuned in for a minute or two to see what he was saying right when the psy-op was going down.

Alex Jones says the same thing today also last I heard, but generally doesn't like to talk about it much.

Interesting to see that you, franky1, are such an Alex Jones fan and that there is so much common ground between your respective positions.  Have you tried his boner pills?

what if you have watched too much alex jones and have no sense of reality..
.. well its not a what if.. because you seem to have watched too much alex jones and been brainwashed into conspiracy cultish thoughts.

try to take a few weeks to clear your head of the theories of "what if" and come back to reality. actually think about real life. real things and stop thinking everything is some fantasy tv show

What if the Rittenhouse trial had psychological propaganda outside of the lay form of racial theorem placed upon the masses? What if there were irregularities similar to those exhibited in Sandy Hook (green screen and child actors)? And all this trial was merely for a rights grab of second amendment defense.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/PWc3oVMS6Wfr/

And what does China have to say about this?


Rittenhouse case ‘exposes illness of US political system’

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202111/1239555.shtml

Kraken attorney adjacent Lin Wood withheld bail money for Kyle Rittenhouse, she wanted to keep him in jail so she could profit. She was also the one peddling election lies trying to profit from foolish right wing nutjobs. If someone tells you something you want to here, and then asks you for money, it doesn't take much common sense to realize they're grifters. Unfortunately, there's a lot of money to be made in the political world from stupid people. But that's generally how people get elected anyways, because a vote doesn't cost anything. And they're no refunds.

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1462955974071926790

1. He was the legal age to own a rifle.
2. People have a right to defend their property.
3. Violent pedophiles don't get to explude people from a city just because they've chosen to riot there.
4. Smashing someone with a skateboard and brandish a handgun at them are both threats.
5. See 4.
6. He did go to the police to surrender. They sent him home. And then when he was summoned to court, he went and stood trial. And he was found not guilty, which any sane person should be thrilled about.

Suspect via MULTIPLE sources In killing several and injuring scores more in #Waukesha  Just released 2 days ago on bond as well. Darrell Edward Brooks Jr. A real winner.

https://twitter.com/TheQuartering/status/1462628463517609984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1462628463517609984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1

he's also a registered sex offender. #BlackTerrorism

https://twitter.com/oaktreeupheaval/status/1462634560986906626?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1462634560986906626%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1

seriously there's like 25 different mugshots of this guy from multiple states.

this sort of black criminality where it goes on for years and years yet he keeps getting out on 1k bail to do it again is the sort of #BlackTerrorism Americans face everyday.

https://twitter.com/oaktreeupheaval/status/1462640157652185091?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1462642827737780225%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2

turns out he's some dirtbag lowlife no name rapper. another shocker

you can see the car used in the terror attack in the back of one of his black rap music videos

https://youtube.com/channel/UCUI_NnHGW518kRgeDOTgH3Q

https://twitter.com/oaktreeupheaval/status/1462642827737780225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1462642827737780225%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1

Waukesha massacre suspect Darrell Edward Brooks was released from Milwaukee County jail on $1,000 bail earlier this week.

Here is Soros affiliated Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm bragging about abolishing bail and congratulating other Soros DAs.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1462647950941773831?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1462647950941773831%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1

up next...

wisconsin man runs over 40+ people..
republican idiots shout 'innocent coz right to travel'

Point taken but what about power disruptions that is where it is good to diversify into the real OG altcoin to the USD: Precious Metals and any other things of value. Crypto will help but should not be the end all be all.




We you a point there that most will be dug out if they played a part in all of this or perceived to have played a part in the pandemic. I'm just feeling you out here to see where you are at.


I'm not quite on the old normal but it is hard to let go, I will admit this. I'm pretty well prepared.

Crypto and physical PM's should outrun price inflation because of relative scarcity, and because distribution is very lop-sided.


Demand will probably fall faster than supply as the de-pop shot takes hold.  Distribution is another matter.  I wouldn't want to be in a city with no quick and easy way out...


Good opportunities to pick up a lot of stuff that the dearly departed have no more use for.  To the degree that their would be competition, many of them will be the perps and richly deserve a place in hell.  With a little good luck there will be enough non-perps to help usher them up to have a little chat with St. Peter.  Life will probably the opposite of 'stagnate'.


Honestly, I don't think you have yet grasped the magnitude of what has been unleashed and your mind is still tethered to the 'old-normal' more than is healthy for planning purposes.  Hopefully I am over-estimating things, but after what has gotten us here to late 2021, I kind of doubt it.

I don't think life will continue to work out for you. Not all the people who took the vax are useless eaters there are still quite a few small and medium businesses that have a big impact on your life. So what will happen is you think you are wealthy, try buying a loaf of bread for $1000, $10000 dollars because without a supply chain and with soon to be high demand you will see it. If you had your own island or owned a huge swath of farmland where you could sustain yourself like a Billionaire or someone worth at least 100 Million dollars then I could say your life would merely stagnate. Now dare I say that you mandated the vax those on government programs (welfare, social security, government pension, works for government) over people working a regular job supporting the real economy then your statement would have substance. I believe it is coming that those on government programs will be mandated to take the vaccine (I bet its in this new bill currently being passed). So just to collect your SS, welfare or pension you will need the keep getting updates on the vaccine otherwise the government cuts you off (mark of the beast). Since they attempted and in many cases succeeded in to forcing people to the jab, your (and hell everyone's) quality of life will continue to erode at a rapid pace mid-December to early-January.

There are some people who always want to cause trouble, riot, loot, etc. A public protest of sufficient size will always attract these people, irrespective of the reason for protest (and irrespective of whether it's 'right' or 'left'). This fact doesn't invalidate all mass protests, does it? Perhaps some people out there are peacefully protesting against racial injustice? I've had discussions with you before, and I know you're not stupid, so you must realise this. In which case, why do you equate BLM with terrorism? What's the real reason? Those blacks have been uppity since the '60s, haven't they? They should know their place and get back on the plantation, amirite? [/s]




Yeah, same for me.

Wasn't that was the 'rally' where the NIH said that it was safe to come out of lockdown and gather together since 'covid' was taking that weekend off?

Funny how the 'new normal' policies always seem to hurt small business and consequently favor big multi-national corporations.  Honestly, as someone on the higher end of the wealth curve and someone who doesn't get off on pleb things (work, sporting events, social gathering, phony FBIFA led 'insurrections', etc) the 'new normal' has worked out pretty well for me so far both financially and in other ways.  Once the clot-shot has fully worked it's magic on the useless eaters, things could be even better.

What's funny is the these pollsters will never ask politically inconvenient questions because they're afraid of the left wing mob. Are you aware of the damage that BLM terrorists have done during 2020 to American cities because George Floyd died of a fentanyl induced heart attack?

Well, let's dive into that question starting where the events took place -- 550 million alone in Minneapolis.

https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-foundation-raising-20-million-to-rebuild-small-businesses-hurt-in-2020-riots/600058520/


Were these right wing Trump supporters that did this?

The J6 attacks, or "insurrection" as it is called, were a bunch of toothless Trump supporters from Alabama armed with MAGA hats and selfie sticks trespassing on the Capitol building. Absolutely terrifying.

Yeah...no, I said what I had to say to you.

I'm sure you'll have plenty of posters come along shortly to continue the stupid ass conversation you're having with yourself.

*there's probably nothing useful for me to add to this conversation.

Ok, then answer my question how does what Rittenhouse did akin to racism? When he was just there to protect his dad's and other businesses. None of the casualties or as you call them "victims" were black but rather the same race as him white. I don't see it as this at all but rather an overblown media hype stating this because it was at a BLM "protest" that usually ends in what I said to you before: property damage and looting.

Don't post some bullshit I didn't say as a fucking quote. (and for emphases I mean that)
If you want to post what I said that made you draw that narrow conclusion and then equate it that way: fine that's your opinion.

AND P.S. I'm not a democrat or republican,  I rarely watch the news,  I read <------so I'm accustomed to hardly anyone getting or agreeing with what I'm saying.

I am a classical liberal: I believe a small, limited government's role is to protect its citizens interests and liberties with the least amount of interference to the individual.
If "conservatives" really believed that, I'd go back to being a republican.


For clarity:
I think race is just another social construct, like caste systems, the idea of monarchs born to rule ect. People of all genders and colors can more easily lean into the roles of oppressor than anyone would care to give attention to.
If you watch a Doc like Age of Rage or Kill All the Brutes it gives a small perspective into the human psyche protecting its own fragile ego.

There is not a question that we find people who look like "us" and think like "us" more relatable or that we use heuristics as part of our decision making process (especially in heated circumstances).
Our unquestioned biases are not always easy to see, especially when it's something we agree with or slanted in our favor but they are only part of "a truth".

So I'm trying to remember... Are you from the UK? Or Europe? Where they both have illegal immigrant Middle East/Afrikaners that half the time end up stabbing people, raping women, or blowing things up? It might help to have an amendment to own a firearm to defend one's self to counteract these terrible acts, am I right? Then these people wouldn't feel so welcomed to commit these acts because no one will do anything about them. Or are you from Australia where they took that right away and now they under absolute COVID tyranny like Europe/UK?


Your chart over samples Democrats btw.

It has nothing to do with Trump, yet. I'm considering a future scenario, in which this ruling and the current machinations of elements of the Republican party intersect.

I'm not sure whether or not you personally believe the election was stolen. But of course you're aware that Trump wasn't happy about losing, and has done everything he can to try to reverse the decision, and to subvert the democratic process. Even Mitch McConnell has been clear on the consequences of this, during Biden's certification.

But Trump is charismatic, and knows how to rile up his base. And he has plenty of allies. And a large proportion of the population believe his claims, including 68% of Republican voters. Also, 30% of Republicans believe that "true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country". Can you see how the Rittenhouse verdict may have consequences here?


https://www.prri.org/research/competing-visions-of-america-an-evolving-identity-or-a-culture-under-attack/

Ultimately Trump wasn't able to reverse the election result, because he didn't have his people in the right places. This is a mistake he is working hard to address for '24. It's no coincidence that Trump allies are running for secretary of state in certain locations... and not even just against Democrat incumbents, they're also fighting against those Republicans who opposed 'stop the steal'.

If you don't get enough votes to win an election, and the officials refuse to reverse the decision in your favour, then you have two options. You can get more votes, or you can put more compliant officials in place. One is somewhat easier than the other.

So, consider the four points below, and ask yourself whether these might not intersect if Trump loses in '24.

1) 30% of Republican voters believe that "true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country".
2) Trump is putting the 'correct' officials in place, who will certify the results in his favour regardless of the vote count.
3) If the votes say the Democrats won, but the 'impartial' officials say that Trump won, then a lot of Democrat voters will head out onto the streets to complain.
4) The Rittenhouse verdict means that "true American patriots" can kill protesters with impunity, and the dead won't even be called victims.

Wrong again.  In the case of Bundy Ranch, I fell for it for a few days.  Then I saw one obscure vid from a no-name analyst about one of the acts (a tasering along a road) and it was obvious that there was a lot of stagecraft.  Simple logic implies that if one act is scripted, the whole thing _must_ be.  After that it was just a matter of weighing the 'stage show' hypothesis against others in analyzing observations.  It explained most of the observations, stage mistakes, and other oddities perfectly.

The number of people analyzing the right-wing flavored hoaxes is minuscule.  More left-wing friendly stuff (e.g., Boston or Sandy Hook) gets skeptical attention, but even here it has been stamped out pretty well through programs of 'controlling the narrative.'  The kind of burying and quashing of voices and analysis was nothing new for the scamdemic.  I've seen it for years, and well over half a decade for certain critical and obscure subjects.  The scamdemic simply made it the 'new normal'.

In the case of the Kenosha hoax, I was completely first, and almost the only person calling it.  Ever.  When I went looking for a vid for my post above, I scoured through Jewtube for a while with zero results for skepticism.  Buttchute had a ton of 'mainstream' right-wing crap, but I had to seek high and low before finding that woman's video which I posted.

Funny story:  When Sandy Hook happened I checked what Alex Jones had to say just out of curiosity.  His position was that it was real and as the government said, and 'just because some things have been staged doesn't mean everything is.'  Only when a ton of other's started proving the fraud in undeniable ways did Jones dip is toe in when he started losing cred, then he pulled it right back out when it started costing him in mainstream attacks.  Most of the people doing real work on Sandy Hook left the genera and/or died (e.g., Jeff C.)

funny part is im not even american.
funnier part is some people think they understand the american constitution but then prove their ignorance when the ignore the words like "well regulated".
so while some idiots think its ok to give 17yo's a gun and an excuse to kill anyone trying to disarm them.. 'coz constitution' . they forget that their constitution never actually expressly allows anyone to kill anyone

EG candles are not illegal.. but using them to start arson and burn people is illegal
being allowed to own a candle does not give freedom of moral-ignorance to then burn people

having a car does not mean you can run people over

its not about law. its about intelligence and morals... common sense stuff

as for thinking i am against freedom of speach. well you can say what you like but understand that your right to say bull-crap does not mean someone else cannot correct you and show other readers that your rants about freedoms are flawed.
oh and just to note. you have the right to speak. but that does not mean you have the right to a loudspeaker device, a stage or a platform.
those who own platforms, stages, forums have their own right to ban whomever they like.
this does not gag your speach. because your jaw still moves and your tongue still wiggles. so just remember you have the right to speak. but not the freedom to spam forums with bull crap and think that no one should correct, debunk or rebuttal you.

with right also comes with responsibility.
seems you forget about responsibility. especially with your mindset that a guy with a gun vs a guy without a gun.. the guy with the gun has responsibility for his actions.

More like believing everything MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC say. For the record, I don't watch Fox news (there is only one tolerable anchor on there and I think you can guess who) I get my sources elsewhere and from ones that practically predict where this is all headed. So on that topic how about the world that Franky wants us to head towards:

Getting rid of the first amendment, calling what others say is Hate speech or conspiracy giving them a negative social credit score (we are already here).

Getting rid of the second amendment, this is what they wanted to do with the Rittenhouse case is rule out self-defense altogether, give up the guns so we can be more like California or New York on steroids.

And the other amendments won't matter because we gave up the first two which are most important.

So what you are saying is that it is best to join with the establishment and become their minions of this oppressive system, Franky? I think this is what you and some others seems to infer when you'll be the first to be destroyed by it when they no longer need you. I guess that is justice for you being a slave to the Biden establishment that runs this country from the deep state.



You're forgetting about the CHAZ zone in Washington where leftist broke away a whole area of Seattle for like a week or so. Also the Courthouse under siege by leftists in Portland throwing moltovs at is and attacking Federal officers trying to get in (surprised none of them were shot but I'm sure there would be outrage) and this happened before January 6th!!! Where is the outrage here and hell there are still random riots in Portland for just flat out bullshit like the Rittenhouse trial. Also there were a bunch of other random riots in other cities but I can't remember myself but those two stood out the most besides the one you mentioned in Minnisota.

its not about believing news or fake new. its about having the ability to then do the research to then verify each and both and find out which are lies.

just because i dont trust conspiracy cult sites does not mean i trust fox news.. both can equally be drivers of recruiting idiots into groups

i also tried explaining tvbcof's sheep script follower mindset using words so this time i tried numbers.
if your offended by me rating another person. maybe try understand the reason for the rating and not the rating itself.

but oh well if your buddy is hurt by the rating. well maybe he will take that hurt and realise that its due to him hurting himself

that being said. rittenhouse should have been found guilty of some crimes that are obvious. but, oh well its america, dont expect justice

The videos from half a dozen angles do not lie. You know, a good attorney isn't skilled enough in digital alterations and CGI to make up evidence. Kyle Rittenhouse was being chased by some degenerative piece of debris that threatened to kill him and reached for his long barrel weapon. You are disappointed Kyle Rittenhouse didn't take a beating instead?


What riots were there in 2020 after Trump lost the first time? What does this have to do with Trump? The only rioting I saw media reports about was for Saint George Floyd. And when you mention Rittenhouse going state to state, you know he made a 20 minute drive from his residence in one state to the city of Kenosha in another state. His father lived in Kenosha, his grandmother, and he worked there.

All the courts were trying to do was to make it as short a focus as possible... except if they could find hi muilty.

Take all of BLM to trial for damage. Make 'em pay.

Its people like you that spout racism so damned much that the word has no fucking mean kind of like how people use the word fuck so much it no longer has emphasis in meaning. What does racism have to do with Rittenhouse he did not kill anyone that was black. The only parallel is that this happening during a "mostly peaceful" protest for BLM where we all know where this usually leads to property damage and looting for free stuff since ol Bernie and AOC couldn't give it to you cuz they want their bilk.



So you are keeping social score on this? What are you a PROC operative yourself appropriating a social credit score for people while you gawk at whatever lies the mainstream media feeds you? They lied to you about WMDs in Iraq, lied to you about you can keep your doctor and that Obamacare was free, they lied to you about peaceful protests and Kyle Rittenhouse being the scum of the Earth. So I think it is you that lacks independent thought Franky. Just say nothing to see here and call it a night.

ok so there we have it. tvbcof is a copy and paste conspiracy nut now following the alex-jones styled cultish narrative.

why is it that tvbcof swaps one cultish conspiracy nut influencer for another

is there no chance of tvbcof ever having an original independent thought, or is this forum doomed to just read repeats of something he saw elsewhere and is just rehashing their script

i mean he says he believed the deaths were real for a few minutes. but then..
.. after watching a bitchute video from a conspiracy cult..
.. and suddenly 'placement of cams were a give-away to me'..
sorry tvbcof but they were not a give-away, you were suggested it was fake and you then became brain washed(again) by another conspiracy cult to think it was staged, by your own admission.

do you even read the words you say

you say you thought the murders were real +1
you then watched a bitchute -10
you then thought it was fake-100
you then thought it was your own thought that it was obviously fake -1000

you are at minus 1110 compared to reality.  and its not even your own independent thought thinking it.

This whole thing was a staged and choreographed hoax from the get go.  I 'fell for it' for a few minutes the night it happened, but after watching a couple of the accounts and clips I could see it right away.  This girl has some stuff on it:

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/iCtctteN8BvU/

and few if any of her observations even overlap with my own.  The blockers along the road and placement of the cams was a give-away to me.  Likewise the avalanche of pre-incident footage which guaranteed that Rittenhouse would have to be found not-guilty.  Another one was some some probably authentic BLM and/or bystander footage before the first event where they were instructed that the area was an 'ANTIFA thing' and to clear out.  Directives which they dutifully complied with.

It's funny to see the Q-tard-ee wing of the 'truthers' fall for even the most ridiculous of gas-light theater shows when the script is written to seem to support their side of things.  Bundy Ranch and Malheur come to mind.

It's also now reasonable for far-right vigilantes to roam around the country, travelling from state to state, killing whoever they please, so long as they can provide (or have a lawyer who can provide) some flimsy pretext.
The verdict does appear to have set an alarming precedent. Anyone who protests against anything is now fair game for any extremist with a gun.

The aftermath of 2020 was bad enough. Imagine what might happen if Trump loses again in '24.

A well paid attorney making the case for self-defense to a biased judge only confirms my own long held bias: in my country you can get away with anything if you have enough money.
Yes there is at least one country who issues its citizens firearms but ammo is highly regulated. *jeezus just google it
The 2nd amendment does not include the right to kill citizens ----although that’s a pointed connection you’re making there.
Laws vary from state to state (or even county) on things like “stand your ground” and constitutional carry.



Trayvon Martin was kid too and his life is over because a [bigoted] grown man with a gun followed him ---> even after a dispatcher tells Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

None of the Black Lives Matters protestors exercising their ‘First Amendment Right’ are terrorists.
All looters and rioters should go to jail.

The white supremacy thing isn't too far off but it does take us off the relevant points:
"some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses" Killing in the Name RATM

And yes: I think both parties show their racism differently. I don’t even like the construct of race since we’re humans that continue to divide ourselves on things like the color of our skin.


Yes and there lies the subtlety in the Zimmerman verdict:
That it's somehow reasonable to feel threatened by the presence of a black man.

[sarcasm]
ok school kids take a gun to school. cop:"your 17, its ok. and you even get to kill your teachers. because if they dare disarm you, you can kill them for free, as thats now defense".
[/sc]

sorry but someone with a gun is not innocent of 'rittenhouse did not provoke them'.... HE HAD A GUN!! there was serious provocation

needless to say that they were unarmed and so what kind of life threat could he have received that equals them getting shot
[sarcasm ]'he had a empty carrier bag i had to shoot him as i have a huge phobia of plastic'
[/sc]

saying an unarmed person offers a large enough threat that a armed person should shoot them is just opening up loopholes for abuse later..
there should be an equal use of force.. EG if someone fears a fist fight.. then fine use fists back. not get out a fully auto machine gun and blitz the other persons guts across the road

[sarcasm]
'yes officer my wife handed me the wrong beer, i thought she was poisoning me, so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir, you didnt know that she changed brands just to save a bit of money, your innocent'

'yes officer my wife was talking to another man. i thought she was planning to kill me so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir if you beleived she should be hiden in the kitchen instead, then you have the right to kill her'

'yes officer my wife forgot the milk in my coffee, i feared injury so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir your innocent, wives should be trained to pour the perfect coffee or expect death'

'yes officer my wife was using her cell phone. i thought it was a gun so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir, i make that mistake with all the black people o drive by.'

'yes officer, my wife came back from the store with a grocery bag. so i shot her'
..'thats ok sir, plastic is a real environmental problem how dare she use plastic grocery bags. killing her helped the planet'
[/sc]

silly thing is .. guys that have no self assessment of whats a real threat. no patience to assess situations. no logic or mindset to manage their emotions, should not own a gun..
but 'coz america' its not an eye for an eye if 2 people have equal weaponry and offer equal risk to each other then fine duel it out.. instead its a 'i believe my life is at threat so i should kill'

no wonder depressed bullied kids end up shooting up their school if thats the lessens america want to teach kids.. [sarcasm]'its fine if you feel like you were threatened, shoot them'[/sc]

back in my day, if you get punched.. punch back. NOT grab a gun and shoot them

Rittenhouse did not murder anyone. He was literally found not guilt of murder today.

If Rittenhouse was one of the rioters, he would not have even been charged, so there would be no verdict. For example, the court found that Rittenhouse was reasonably afraid of being killed by Gaige Grosskreutz, yet Gaige Grosskreutz was not charged with attempted murder, even after he admitted in open court to pointing a gun at Rittenhouse.

If one of the BLM terrorists shot someone, it probably wouldn't have been in self defense. I don't think there were any instances of BLM terrorists being attacked during last year's riots.

Or even if he didn't have a rifle.

The verdict (along with sentencing and execution) would have been carried out when he approached the cops with his rifle.

Whereas in this case, he just happened to be in that place at that time, waving a gun around? No premeditated intent to kill anyone... probably even forgot he had a gun.  


He gets to live. The people he murdered don't. Wonder if the verdict would have been the same if he'd been black and on the other side? Of course, I don't really wonder... that suggests some degree of uncertainty.




Appreciate I'm not from the US, just an outsider from a nation with no gun culture... but I think many outside the US will see this the same way I do, innocent until proven guilty... if you're white. This can't be separated from its context.

I'm relieved that this kid's life is only 75% ruined instead of 99% ruined, and it's certainly a good and important result for the right to bear arms and defend yourself. Still, Rittenhouse's life will be very rough, two people are dead, and one is permanently disabled.

It'll be difficult for him not to lean into his right-wing celebrity status, since his defense was largely funded by them and the media has already painted him as a far-right extremist, but if I was him I'd really try to distance myself from that, or else he'll never be able to escape it. It'll be interesting to see what his first statements are after being acquitted. I'd like to see him express regret at (unintentionally/stupidly) contributing to these three casualties, even though the shootings themselves were defensive; in hindsight, there are a great many things that he could've done differently to avoid anyone getting shot.


A few of them were probably on the fence about whether he'd been provoking the people who later attacked him. The prosecution alleged, based in part on fuzzy, disputed video/image evidence, that he was wielding his gun in an aggressive way earlier.

Some of the jurors will probably give interviews in the coming days, at which time we'll know more about what they were thinking.

Oh no, so sad. Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-verdict-watch-11-19-21/index.html

Self defense has always existed, and I'm confused as to why it took 4 days to decide this. Chauvin trial was over in 10 hours, no questions submitted by the jury to the judge, and maybe 4 or so questions submitted by this jury to the judge. If they wanted to be sure, fine. But to me it may seem as if there was one or two hesitant jurors while the rest were in agreement. It's not as if the evidence is very polarizing.

He'll find a job. It's protecting himself is what he will have to worry about after all these. The world will not see it as self-defense when you are out there in the riot and him holding a gun. It's not every day we see a kid having a gun because NORMALLY these days when we see them like that, it's usually a killing spree. I can't believe someone with the guts to shoot could actaully cry like that. Lives are wasted including his.

You said he was "actively shooting" - that is the same as an "active shooter":
Rittenhouse's father lived in Kenosha, he worked there and had other family and friends there. He lived "across state lines" in Illinois with his mother, who had custody of him (at least most of the time).

No, not all BLM protestors are terrorists, some are naive enough to not understand their goals. However, the goal of BLM as an organization is to terrorize people, especially when they roit and "protest". Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic Obama supporter who was lawfully patrolling his community, and Martin instigated an attack against who would ultimately become his killer before Martin reached for his gun.

I think Rittenhouse will either be found guilty on all charges or will be acquitted on all charges. The evidence is strong in favor of a very quick acquittal (there is very little evidence in favor of a guilty verdict).

The criminal complaint against Rittenhouse can be found here. The accusation is that by shooting his AR-15 at the various people he shot (at), Rittenhouse is guilty of either murder, attempted murder, or reckless endangerment. Here is the statute Rittenhouse is charged under for reckless endangerment. It is vague, and I am not sure where the various terms are defined. The relevant self-defense statutes would apply to all of the charges, although the facts would need to be applied individually to each charge (Rittenhouse needed to meet the criteria for self-defense for each time he fired his gun).

He is likely not going to be able to live any kind of life resembling what a normal 18-year-old would expect to live. I think he will likely be able to find work though.

Also, a lot of the reason why Rittenhouse sees such dismal life prospects is due to the slander and defamation by far-left politicians who are trying to divide the country and get additional votes from their base. Rittenhouse should be able to get judgments against a lot of the "blue check" mob on twitter and by people like Job Biden, who, without evidence suggested he is a white suppremist, and that he Murdered the two people who died that night.

Well self defense was clearly outlined, so maybe you might've missed something. And it appears you have missed something.



He had a right to open carry. Provocation doesn't include exercising a right to open carry. But, if we want to split hairs, I'd consider provocation to be someone chasing at you, saying "fuck you" and throwing a projectile at you while reaching for the barrel of an AR15. The same guy that said he'd cut someone's heart out at a group Kyle Rittenhouse was part of, the same guy that said to Kyle Rittenhouse if he'd catch him alone he'd kill him.

So that's not provocation?


Yes, turns out you can use rights given to you. Correct me if I'm wrong, is there a country in the world that allows you to own firearms but not use them? Maybe owning them for historical or antique purposes.

Nobody should have been there rioting over BLM, and Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been an impromptu firefighter/medic. But he was there, and so were the people tried to kill him. And, well, we know who came out of there alive.

Rittenhouse was very stupid to put himself into this position. If I'd known him and he'd told me he was going to go into the middle of a riot armed, I'd say, "Are you braindead? You're either going to get killed or arrested." But he was 17, so how much wisdom can you expect out of him? It seems that he put himself into this position partially out of a desire to help people (which is laudable), probably moreso out of ego, but certainly not with the intention of hurting anyone.

It's always a tragedy when anyone dies. The first guy who Rittenhouse shot seems to have been a seriously messed up, violent person who bore full fault in that confrontation, though even his death is a tragedy. The second and third shootings were especially tragic since it seems that they might've honestly thought that Rittenhouse was some sort of mass murderer going on a shooting spree. That said, it's clear to me that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he shot them: they were clearly trying to kill or severely hurt him, and Rittenhouse did not provoke them. It doesn't matter in Rittenhouse's case what the people attacking him thought they were doing.

I hope that he's acquitted of all charges, and the evidence strongly supports that, though I would understand the "recklessly endangering public safety" charges sticking, since open-carrying during a riot obviously turns up the temperature. (I would not agree with him being found guilty of reckless endangerment: the appearance of a riot shouldn't negate your right to defend yourself and your property. But it's a much more understandable charge than saying that he wasn't acting in self-defense in the shootings themselves.)

Rittenhouse's life is pretty much over regardless of the result. He's going to endure harassment and attempts on his life constantly, and his only real career prospect is probably to lean into his history here and become a sort of right-wing celebrity, which is a terrible life to have to lead. What an absolute tragedy all around.

The whole way that this was spun is disgusting. It reminds me a lot of the Zimmerman case, where a Hispanic person who voted for Obama shot someone in obvious self-defense, and this was spun as a "white supremacist hate crime" by politicians as a despicable, cynical way to rile up their base.

That's an important demographic for the Democrats, so naturally their media lapdogs are on the job.

He had an AR-15, not an AK. They are not the same thing and they shoot completely different rounds. Many of the Black Lives Matter protesters are terrorists. Burning down businesses, beating up police and civilians, and destroying property is not the way to get your "peaceful" point across.

"What don't you get about self defense?"
We don't agree so I'm failing to "get something".


"Would you prefer that people have killed Kyle Rittenhouse after he did nothing to provoke anyone?"
You don't think an open carry of an assault rifle at a protest could be perceived as a provoking action? I do.


"It strikes me as odd" that you equate the right to bear arms with the use of deadly force against another citizen, and how often people disjoint that right from the responsibility of gun ownership and btw it's an amendment that I support and exercise.

 but since we're on the subject of "The Constitution"
and "moral corruption"...
it's a short (and extraordinary) document , there is more to it than the 2nd amendment.

The modern world owes much to to the ideal of inalienable rights put forth by our founding fathers, in the review of history it is not a secret that they failed to live up to their own stated idea of "the moral equality of human beings": I feel compelled to strive for that.


I don't have empathy for modern "conservatives" getting triggered by the Black Lives Matters movement especially the (Tucker Carlson) segment of the population that feels they are currently being discriminated against. <---- this takes an extra amount of willful ignorance not to recognize the struggles of your fellow humans
 or indifference unless it's happening to you or a flat out racist need for a sense of supremacy.
So that's how far apart we are on "getting each other" on this topic.


BADecker, you have good points on this one.

We have a judge who doesn't allow those killed by Rittenhouse to be referred to as "victims" because it creates bias but allows those who died to be referred to as "looters" and "rioters".


I wish the world was a better place and that we humans were better at being humane.

Attorneys are officers of the court. The judge is their boss. They need to know what they are talking about if they oppose their boss. They might lose their job or worse if they defy their judge. This is why a good attorney can't file a major claim against his judge.

One of the greatest maxims of court law is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. If Rittenhouse went home to sleep in his own bed after the shootings, it was because he was innocent until proven guilty. If he has spent any time in jail at all, it was because all law enforcement and attorneys and judges involved broke their oath of office. The major law is, innocent until proven guilty, and they swear to uphold it... not innocent until there are a bunch of people who think that he could or might be proven guilty.

Kyle's attorneys must go along with guilty until proven innocent, because they might lose their job.

Properly done, a claim should be filed by Kyle against the attorneys and judges for the innocent until proven guilty thing. Kyle should stand as a man, without the attorneys being able to speak officially in court, but only as co-counsel to advises him on what to say. Same for the judges and attorneys who broke their oaths of office by holding Kyle guilty until proven innocent. Kyle could negate everything done against him if he stood this way.

A further trick is that under common law, Kyle can't even speak because he is under age. His Dad would have to do the actual speaking, which could easily change the whole operation of the court.

He did the world a favor by killing a pedophile. What don't you get about self defense? Would you prefer that people have killed Kyle Rittenhouse after he did nothing to provoke anyone? You know, it strikes me as odd that the US constitution can have the right to bear arms written in plain English, yet when someone decides to practice that right, it's an act of moral corruption. May as well erode the entire constitution while you're at it. It's getting old anyways. 2 centuries, hell of a run.

I didn't call him an "active shooter".

"Community" ?
He went armed with an AK into someone else's community to protect property against people.

I don't believe that all Black Lives Matters protestors are "terrorists" and there's plenty of irony here since the Trayvon Martin case was its catalyst.

Rittenhouse has plenty of Alt-right adjacent supporters to help fund his legal campaign: he is being well represented and things like that will continue to twist our sense of community in America.

Rittenhouse was not an active shooter. He shot three people who were trying to actively harm him. The people that were trying to harm Rittenhouse were using deadly force and were the instigators of the confrontations.

Rittenhouse was trying to protect the community that the BLM terrorists were trying to burn down.

Yes---> anyone who is able should try to disarm someone who is actively shooting.
It's disgusting to see the sympathy for Rittenhouse being there armed and killing people,
without even the slightest effort given towards understanding the reasons protests were happening.

It reminds me of this Gallup poll data where 5.6 percent of the US identifies as LGBT, with one in six of <24 identifying as LGBT.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx

I don't see this trend in countries outside of the US. I assume only because the tribalism is so large in the US, and that it's becoming socially and culturally the norm to identify as whatever letter of the alphabet. It could be untreated mental illness too, but to me it's just a fad that will run its course and phase away. But, still, the number will rise before it goes back down. What does will the peak be?

It is interesting how the anti-conservatives seem to always be taking the side of pedophiles and other mentally ill individuals.  I recently saw a statistic that showed more than half of white liberal women between the age of 19-29 have been diagnosed with a mental illness.  It is the highest risk group.  If you are a liberal white woman between the age of 19-29 the odds are that you are mentally ill.  If you aren't mentally ill, you have beaten the odds...  I think a lot of people should keep this in mind when seeing responses from certain members of this community who fit this demographic to a T. 

I don't think he should've been there, that doesn't mean you get to kill someone who has a gun. And no, there isn't evidence he was "waving the gun" at people. Post if it you have it, because it doesn't exist.

Did you hear the testimony where Joseph Rosenbaum was *chasing* after someone who attempted to get away? And then he jumped and lunged for the person's firearm?

Tell me, franky, if you are threatened by someone's gun, and they haven't pointed it at you, your reaction is to run at them, chase them down, throw something at them while chasing, say "fuck you" while chasing (not disputed by the prosecution)?


And how do they know the shooting was or was not justified? They made that assumption? You don't get to chase someone down and deliver justice based on an assumption. Their assumption was wrong.

So yes, in a rational world, you are allowed to run away from a threat and only use force if you have to. Kid had to use force, he was being hunted.

(1) wow so kyle managed to do a criminal records check and psychiatric assessment on a guy weilding a carrier bag.
.. reality is in a world of 2 people one with a gun and one with a bag.. the guy with a gun cant play victim.

(2) so if trump asked you to break into capital hill.. ud do it, no question
so if someone asked you to jump off a bridge, ud jump
so if an adult drug dealer asked a kid to be a drug mule/street hustler, its all fair and no criminal act occured involving the adult dealer
maybe the adult that owns the car dealership should also be prosecuted, much like how a husband hires a hitman to kill their wife. or a gang leader employees kids to do the street deals.

(4) unarmed people chasing an armed kid. and your not asking why they are chasing him and trying to take away his gun
whats next a kid walks into a school with a gun and if the teachers try to disarm the kid before he shoots, the kid gains rights to kill everyone('coz they tried to take my gun from me)... um no thats not how real world, morals, logic and laws work

(5) did you hear the testimony where the kid who shouldnt have a gun , had a gun.. and was waving it around at unarmed people.
are those unarmed people suppose to be happy and content with being threatened when they were unarmed?

(6)unhinged mob?
a unarmed guy got shot and other people wanted to disarm him
i dont think you are noticing the morals
if someone shoots an unarmed person. the rational act is to disarm the one with the gun. not treat the only person with a gun as a victim


seems in gyfts local neighbourhood if you want to get away with murder. you have 3 loop holes
1. claim a carrier bag was a threat to life
2. play victim if anyone tried to disarm you, saying being disarmed is a defensive reason to kill anyone that tries
3. pretend you done a criminal record check and a medical check on anyone trying to disarm you, saying you killed them because they are a criminal you knew about before shooting them

in a rational world away from gyfts neighbourhood.
if someone with a gun points it at unarmed people, its the unarmed peoples right to defend themselves

1. That doesn't mean he doesn't get to shoot a raging pedophile that is chasing after him.

2. Doesn't matter if he was asked be there, but he was asked to be there anyways.

3. Yeah, agreed. The rioters shouldn't have been there either.

4. That wasn't the deadly threat, it was chasing after the kid trying to take his gun from him.

5. Do you recall from testimony where the guy said to the kid "if I catch you alone I'm going to kill you" earlier in the night?

6. He did try to surrender after shooting the guy in the car parking lot, except the unhinged mobbed tried to chase him and then physically started to attack him. You don't get to start mobbing someone because you "think" he might be a mass shooter. That's not how it works.

1. rittenhouse was underage and shouldnt have had a gun
2. a business called him to protect a dealership. pfft. any mature adult would not phone a kid with no security experience to drive miles to another town to protect a property thats not the kids
3. rittenhouse(a kid) again for emphasis should not have even been in the town let alone with a gun

4. if throwing a plastic bag is a deadly threat.. then massacres are going to be more common

5. after shooting someone for throwing a bag. ofcourse its going to escalate where people seeing this will start to give chase to stop the immature idiot from killing others.

6.. so lets get this straight.. the defense once to say
someone throwing a non lethal object is excusable to get shot with a lethal object. and then when other people try to disarm the idiot shooter. they are fair game to get shot too... sorry no.
idiot kid should have surrendered. and took his punishment.

Never seen so much sympathy for an antifa scumbag and a convicted pedophile, hope Mr. Joseph Rosenbuam is resting peacefully.

As Tucker Carlson put it succinctly - https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1458603356721541126

He died how he lived, touching an unwilling minor.

All this trial needs is a jury that will look at the evidence, acquit Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges. Not much hope for the US legal system, with kangaroo courts dominating the judicial system, but when the prosecutorial witnesses admits to holding a gun up to the defendants head, there doesn't leave many options. Self defense is self defense!

The BLM bad guy just couldn't condemn Kyle to a bad life in prison. His sympathy made him answer with the truth.

Do you see what many attorneys are? Damn the truth! It's the money and the power.


Prosecution’s case against Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse appears to have BLOWN up after frank admission by wounded attacker