namloc1980 wrote: » Did you read the article? 1. It says: Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst. A YMCA spokeswoman told the Tribune that Rittenhouse was a part-time employee who has been furloughed since March because of the pandemic. Uh oh. He hasn't worked there since March. Someone is telling lies. 2. Even better the YMCA is in Lindenhurst. Lindenhurst YMCA is in ILLINOIS. Not Wisconsin. https://g.page/HastingsLakeYMCA?share Double uh-oh.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Ask his lawyer he was the one that released the statement saying he was working as a community lifeguard in Kenosha that day.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » It's the exact same as you and a bunch of other posters claiming he was a murderous vigilant that went out to murder some protesters. You have no evidence or proof to back up those claims it's pure speculation just as I am speculating that he acted in self defense. So for you to call me out on that is the pot calling the kettle black.
namloc1980 wrote: » But you ran with it as a valid excuse for his presence in Kenosha on that day. Thanks to the link you provided we now know that he hasn't even been working as a lifeguard since March and that his job was actually in Illinois. It blows away your argument that he had reason to be there and wasn't just looking for trouble. So any other excuses as to why he was in Kenosha?
LessOutragePlz wrote: » "After Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha" He was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha, can people not have 2 jobs anymore is that now a crime too?https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kyle-rittenhouses-lawyers-release-statement/
Leroy42 wrote: » The key difference is we know that he went there armed. We know he had no 'business' there. He wasn't law enforced or anything, it was his decision. We know he shot and killed two people. I have no idea what the legal outcome will be, that is for the courts to decide. But you want to, for some reason, side with him and look for reasons that he should be not treated as a person who killed others. Again, as I have already stated, that is a perfectly fine position to take, if one takes that view across the board. But you don't. You do not take the same approach to protestors. As with everything to do with Trump supporters, it is the hypocrisy that you are being called out on, not your position.
namloc1980 wrote: » Where was he working? "Community lifeguard" doesn't pass the sniff test but it should be easy to confirm right? Any links.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Because he was in Kenosha to work not to cause trouble.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » How would it be easy to confirm every single persons work history isn't going to be available online especially when his is a minor.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Show me I said that: he should be not treated as a person who killed others He acted in self defense so yeah he did kill two people in self defense.He did have a legitimate and genuine reason to be there as he was defending a business owners property.
Carfacemandog wrote: » It really does show up the lie that is Trump supporters and right wing media claiming Trump is rallying back in the polls over the protests, and Biden is only denouncing the violence because of this (which itself ignores the fact that Biden has denounced the violence on multiple occasions over the last several months).
namloc1980 wrote: » Typical strawman response. We're not talking about "every single persons work history" quite clearly. We're talking about the guy charged with first degree intentional homicide - the same guy that you are going to extraordinary lengths to defend. I understand you're link to prove he was working as a lifeguard on that day backfired spectacularly, but no need to get defensive. If you can't show that he actually was working on that day in Kenosha then don't use it as an excuse for his presence there.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense. There's no way of proving that he wasn't working as a community lifeguard that day so I'll be taking his lawyers word for it unless proof comes out that he hasn't working as a community lifeguard that day.
duploelabs wrote: » Does the role of community lifeguard enable someone to be armed?
LessOutragePlz wrote: » No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Isn't that why you have .police force? In fact they were there at the time doing exactly that when Rittenhouse murdered two people.
hotmail.com wrote: » Not one person will have their vote influenced by these protests. These will be forgotten if Biden gets in, as those that identify as liberals, just want to blame everything on Republicans.
namloc1980 wrote: » Why are you calling them violent mobs? Have they been charged and found guilty? Just that you were very concerned earlier about Rittenhouse's innocence and that he isn't a vigilante etc. pointing out he hasn't been found guilty of anything.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » You don't need to be found guilty of a crime to be called violent..... it's a subjective term not a legal definition.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Doing that would involve actually being at a business owners property - Standing at the door or what have you. Once he was on a public street ANY claims of "defending property" goes out the window , both in principal and more importantly as a matter of law. Roaming the streets with a weapon isn't "defending a business owners property" , it's being a vigilante. If he had been standing in the doorway of a building or on the roof or whatever and a crowd were outside throwing rocks and maybe even a firebomb then firing his weapon in defence of said property might well have met the requirements for self-defence or indeed the Castle Doctrine. But he wasn't doing that. Bottom line - Kyle Rittenhouse is absolutely no different to any of the armed rioters out there that night. He is neither entitled to nor deserving of any additional sympathy to anyone else out on the streets that night. They were all there looking for trouble and ALL should be held fully accountable for their actions under the law.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Ah right, so i can call you a violent protester even though I don't know you because you have (as far as I know) never been found guilty of a crime that involves violence?
