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.
You've got a long list but you manage to miss the reason why this situation happened.
Because the US cops depending on which side of the local political establishment they are on let riots run wild.
There, that's the key thing that wouldn't happen in most other places and the actual route of why this happened.
In the London riots about good few years back there was free reign for rioters at some stages, but around North London they came out to with the weapons they had too hand, (Turks with knives from the takeaway shops).
Ah yes, trying to stop a guy with a gun who had just shot an unarmed man is a Darwin award contender but dressing up like lil rambo and inserting yourself into a situation trying to be a hard man where you end up crapping your paints and killing 2 people is 'very impressive composure'... 🤣
His white boy tears will probably get him off but his is an utter embarrassment.
They didn't know he killed anyone that happened out of sight to them.
They saw someone isolated running away and chased after him as a group. A group that was also armed. When he fell they attacked. They stuck him first, he shot them second. That's the sequence.
You're implying that someone with a weapon is automatically a threat. However there's no legal basis for that. Where open carry is legal, and there were others carrying weapons. Really the only thing that marked him out was he was alone ad running away. They couldn't know what he was running from or to.
What a stupid argument
It’s logic , he had no reason to be there , by being there he caused a situation
His reason for being there, as was explained to defend homes and businesses from looters and arson attack as well as provide medical assistance to those injured. You may not like it or think it was stupid to do but that doesn't matter, thats the reason he was there, he has just as much right to be there as anyone else. You could just as easily say the rioters had no reason being there and caused the situation , thats why its a stupid argument.
https://i.imgur.com/neNprbG.png
So we’re agreed, two parties of gobshites
They're attacking and chasing him down. How is that acting in self defence. Jesus wept.
Do stupid things get stupid results. They attacked an armed man. They're dead now. Darwinism at its finest.
He broke curfew and held a weapon as a minor he'll be punished for that crime and rightfully so.
So you are claiming that victim is never allowed to be used outside situations which are clearcut murders?
Agree, the t-shirt isn't relevant to self defense but it very relevant to his remorsefulness, which he appeared to be attempting to show with his crying act. The defense would be fully within their rights to make the argument that you're making about why he worse the t-shirt but the jury should be given the right to make that judgement.
By that logic everyone who was there caused the situation.
I've seen the videos, it's 100% self defense... but people would rather he be another death with no qualms grown ass men were attacking a kid with a skateboard to the head and a pistol, because he was "on the wrong side". Hope he walks free. Seems people don't care that the skinhead provoked the situation throwing objects at him, evidently a chain in a bag, and grabbing his gun with people shouting to get and kill him...
The people in favour of the prosecution are a bloody vindictive lot with zero reasoning.
Are you claiming they didn't know there was a shooting and there was a guy running away from the crime scene with a gun?
no that’s not logic
They don't allow it. He was only allowed to carry it for hunting. But thats not clearly defined. They should have a rule is they aren't allowed it until outside city limits and accompanied by a trained adult.
The media who have done their usual job of being sympathetic to white criminals?
You still got a dead white woman, are you not happy?
And Rittenhouse is in court forcing out tears after spending time in prison. He'd be the one that would be dead if the guy with the hand gun took his shot rather than being non-lethal and trying to grab Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse is as much a case of Darwinism, he just got lucky that he isn't dead.
As shown in the videos that have been shown in the trial, many of which have been available online since the incidents, and as confirmed by the prosecution's eye witnesses:
One reason "the guy with the handgun" (Grosskreutz) didn't shoot Rittenhouse could be because his bicep was shot before he could pull the trigger. His roommate (who is due to testify) posted on Facebook that night "“I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz. His only regret was not killing the kid [Rittenhouse] and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him.” He has since testified that that was a lie.
I don't know the law as it pertains to stopping an active shooter, but I imagine that if the shooter has shot one person and then stopped and is retreating with their weapon down, "I was trying to stop him shooting people" wouldn't fly. I'm not certain about that, though. I've only ever seen active shooter cases resolve that way when someone has stopped them clearly in commission of a crime.
No .
You're obsessed by race. Try to look at things objectively - Kyle Rittenhouse went there likely anticipating trouble and possibly hoping for it, however the shootings he committed, according to the law(which will be found ultimately in the trial), were in self defence.
The end.
He didn't shoot anyone that wasn't attacking him. Unarmed people can kill you. An unarmed mob can kill you. Just because you don't have a weapon, doesn't mean you are not a threat. Technically he didn't shoot any other unarmed people one was hitting him a skateboard the other pointed a gun in his face. How did he know they hadn't killed anyone. For that matter you can be killed be someone who's never killed anyone before. What kinda logic is that.
Much simpler, don't attack people, then you are not likely to get shot by them.
Rittenhouse had repeatedly shot an unarmed man before any of the situations you mentioned in your post.
He will walk on the murder charges because it is a two tier system. If he was black at a proud boy riot he wouldn't have gotten out of there alive, be it the rioters or police.
For a child with a gun, he seemed to be far more proficient than his attackers.
He was well out numbered, and got out with barely a scratch on him.
The system is messed up for sure. But his attackers were monumentally dumb. I would defend him, only based on the facts of the case and the laws of the land in which it occurred.
People are trying to inject stuff into this case, that simply isn't relevant.
Yep it's mental , I know people talk about American right wingers being trapped in a media bubble and I am sure that's true, but at least in Ireland there isn't that equivalence it's the liberal left* that are in the bubble, and the front page of this thread is a perfect example normally sensible posters with a completely flawed reading of the situation. Like saying the Judge is biased etc with absolutely no evidence.
* Weirdly any hard left people I've met actually consume news from very diverse set of sources
Lol checkmate
And what was the unarmed man trying to do that led Rittenhouse to shoot him?
Well thats what you're claiming.
What? As far as I'm aware of he only shot once at the skinhead that struck him in the head whom provoked the situation grabbing his gun... the same person taunting and throwing heavy objects at him as well as a mob behind him threatening his life. All consecutive shots were single shots to each assailants.
Your argument on the handgun doesn't make any sense - it was dealt with in court yesterday. He could have easily shot Rittenhouse from the range he was at but tried to disarm him. It is ridiculous to claim, like Rittenhouse is, that rather than shooting him from the range he was at, he instead walked up and grabbed Rittenhouse's gun so he could shoot him up close.
It wouldn't fly to try to disarm a shooter - that is utter nonsense. Sure, they might be in trouble if they killed the shooter but there is no way taking steps to disarm an active shooter is a crime.
