I for one do not believe he shot them people out of self defence and never meant to kill them. I think he intended to kill them and thought he would get away with it. The Judge as well is a joke. What a very strange trial. Only in America.
Just seen the video of the judge going after the prosecution ,it's a sham trial nothing more he's going to walk and be lauded as a hero
The youtube comments on it are a sight to behold.
I mean a kid gets dropped across state lines with semi automatic weapons by his mother and murders people this is classified as normal and he's lauded as a hero ......
There are no victims, according to the judge.
Watch the judge in action everything is geared towards protecting him from being actually challenged
Judge gave the prosecutor a right dressing down: https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/judge-rips-kyle-rittenhouse-prosecutor-over-question/
The whole trial is a sham and reflects really badly on a system that allows that particular judge to preside over it. That kid was out to kill, if he didn't see the opportunity to do so that particular night then he would probably have settled some grudges at a school or got caught up in some other kind of domestic terrorism. His decision to hang out with white supremacists after the killings doesn't exactly underline his supposed innocence.
All nations produce some odious little sh1ts. The USA is the only one that produces odious little sh1ts who’s parents buy them assault weapons and drive them to the sh1tshow...
What you suppose isn't relevant to the trial.
They attackers fired first, he ended it.
That's the only context that matters, doesn't matter what Rittenhouse did earlier that day or that he shot a peado and a kidnapper.
The moment they went in "hot", he had a legal reason to stop them.
Kyle Rittenhouse is going to be a very rich man.
He was attacked and defended himself. There is no case against him. He only fired when in grave danger. He could have easily killed the third man too, but stopped once he was no longer a threat, same with the fourth guy who went to attack him and thought the better of it once the gun was on him. He backed up so wasn’t shot.
Gonna be a lot of upset lads in here when he walks free.
He is absolutely going to walk and become the conservative pundits new golden child. Can you imagine how different this would all be if the roles were reversed and one of his victims shot him. They wouldn't have made it off the street, let alone to trial.
not following it, but any actual evidence ive heard seems like it was self defence... its been set up to stoke tensions, perfect for a few riots when the not guilty verdict comes in, (unless its declared a mistrial)
why do you say that?
He’s been put on trial to stop the riots. A sacrificial lamb, except everything is on tape, and they can’t pin it on him.
Bullshit
Going to be difficult to prove otherwise when most of it was on caught on one camera or another.
First scumbag lunged to try and grab the gun off him, after chasing him and shouting he was gonna kill him. Righteous kill.
Second scumbag had already hit him once over the head, while he was on the ground and was about to do it again. Righteous kill.
Third scumbag admitted in court that Rittenhouse only opened fire once he had drawn and pointed a loaded handgun at him. Righteous obliteration of a hand/arm.
All self defence, all captured on video and all backed up by video and cop evidence.
Maybe you'd explain how he orchestrated it.
Too much cod I think
Compared with our judges, who think there are no perpetrators, only victims!
His defence has filed for a miss trial and seeking a ruling if mistrial is granted he can't be retried for the offences ,
Out of curiosity. Why is it a sham and to what purpose?
*wrong thread...
He was having a pretty genuine looking panic attack when trying to recall the details of the events.
People calling it acting, but I've seen panic attacks and also ptsd first hand. It didn't look fake to me. He's only a kid, very traumatic thing to go through.
Why was Rittenhouse there with weapons in the first place? He's not a police officer and not a local.
It's America. They do stuff like that. Right to carry arms etc.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” ...
But did he travel there with the intention to kill people? Perfect situation if you wanted to play soldier with your gun and shoot people.
Keep your arms by all means, but travel a great distance to a riot so you can shoot people? Not exactly responsible gun ownership is it?
Running away from people (some who are armed) and letting them attack you on the ground seems an unlikely way to achieve that.
Kinda missing the point (and legality) of the right to bear arms. We might not agree with it, but it exists.
The video evidence doesn't support intent to shoot people. Rather the opposite.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/64adc52434b2c8aeb21506c8d692a94a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
