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.
Nick Sandman was able to claim defamation because he was a minor and he was not charged with any crime. Kyle Rittenhouse will not be able to sue the media, because this is a criminal case and the media can claim they sourced the information from the Wisconsin state prosecutors. If an investigation shows malfeasance by the prosecutors then he may have a case against the Wisconsin state, however this will not be a quick win and will take several years. Kyle Rittenhouse does not have the resources to pursue cases like that such a drawn out case like that does not have the appeal of ambulance chaser lawyers that saw a quick win. His case did attract the attention of many lawyers across the United States and quite a few would like to see the prosecutors punished for pursuing what they see as a political trial when the facts at an early stage of investigation indicated this was not the case.
For example questions are being asked openly about the prosecutors means, motives and actions such as this.
I wonder is he wearing his 'Free As Fück' t-shirt
I can, and I will, because it's the case. As I've said to you before, you've clearly been taken in by the us v them attitude they have in America, because you live there. You are left wing, so the Republicans and conservatives are never right about anything and are the big bad wolves at the door. For a right-winger it's the reverse. It's boring, lazy analysis.
People regularly screw that up in the media, it doesn't help that some semis are called automatic because they cycle automatically, ie colt automatic pistol.
That's your analysis. And it smacks of looking at something from the outside.
I'm more than capable of judging people on their words and actions as opposed to the colours they wear. I live in a state with a Republican Governor and have repeatedly praised their actions on a range of topics. I've repeatedly disagreed with a number of Democrat politicians and commentators.
But I am not going to give a pass to those who nurture hatred and division just because some who I am seen to be more aligned with need to pick up their standards also. Anyone asking for this is always focused on shutting down conversation/criticism and is in favour of not shining a light on unacceptable behaviour.
I wouldn't give them a pass either. The biggest problem over there is there are so few who look at and criticize their 'own side'. Bari Weiss, Bill Maher would be two, can't think of any on the right.
And BTW, sometimes it's better to have someone from the outside looking in.
I doubt it. The jury just found that all those shot or killed were assailants in this case. 12 people looked at the evidence and said in each count that he was the one being attacked. Best of luck in a civil court trying to get past that.
Funny you should say that but all the evidence pointed in the opposite direction. At no point did he instigate or go looking for trouble. Amazing what you can learn by watching a case.
DELIGHTED KYLE HAS BEEN FOUND INNOCENT!
GO KYLE!!!!!!
At no point did he instigate or go looking for trouble.
Well, apart from travelling from a different state with a gun he didn't own to do a job he wasn't trained or hired for. As a 17 year old.
Matt Taibbi and Glen Greenwald are other ones but media bubbles is pretty much at the core of a lot of issue there one screen two movies, its fascinating from a psychological perspective
The raw news stuff from thehill.com is one of a few impartial news sites imo for US politics, no Sensationalism . You'll still find people claiming CNN and the likes are impartial though, it's laughable stuff :D.
He didn't cross state lines with a gun, though. Stop telling lies.
He didn't travel from a different state with a gun. The gun was given to him by a friend Mr Black. He's legally allowed open carry the gun. Whether he was trained or hired is completely and utterly immaterial to this case. He was attacked and defended himself. At no point did he instigate anything. Him being in the area is understandable as his father lives there and he has ties to the community. Him being in the area in no way gives anyone the right to attack him just because of his mere presence.
It would be good to know why those three people decided to travel there that night and attack him. Maybe Gross will someday spill the beans but the other two took that information with them to the grave unfortunately.
I also want to be very clear, there are no winners in any of this. Anyone that thinks making a few dollars will erase the trauma of having two deaths on your conscious doesn't understand how these things work. I hope he gets the help he needs over the next few years to deal with that properly and has good family around him to stop him from being used as a political pawn.
I believe it. The thought of their enemy suffering is what motivates a lot of regressives more so than any sense of right or anything like that.
Sorry to disappoint though, I posted on another thread here yesterday that an acquittal was most likely.
Defence attorney Mark Richards offers comments after the verdict.
Fight over the $2 million bail bond paid bond money refunds expected, nothing to do with him though.
At one level I completely agree with your sentiment.
However, there is another perspective. A young lad, spurred on by racist sentiment from his elders, panicked in a pressurized situation, and pulled a trigger and didn't realise the consequences. While the self-defence argument has some merit, he wouldn't need it if he wasn't there in the first place.
I look back thirty years (actually nearly forty years but I don't like to think I am old( and think about how I was then and I can't say I am proud of what I thought as a teenager. Rittenhouse was a teenager with a white supremacist mentality, but is he to blame for who he is? His family and his community carry a lot more blame.
Delighted he is out … he should get a medal
How is it even possible to still believe this?
He didn't travel with the gun and this is known to anyone who followed the case.
The other points are not relevant to the verdict.
I don't get how you can post on a thread where people are talking about a specific case and still manage to get a detail that has been discussed and clarified completely wrong?
I assume you'll be acknowledging the mistake, at least?
God forbid, you posted that the acquittal was most likely when the facts of the case were obvious and every objective person saw it that way. What a leap forward.
Was Rittenhouse deservedly acquitted in your opinion? Yes or no? Don't want big long winded post about if it had been a black kid, just a yes or no?
You know that all three of the people he shot were/are white?
Do you know anything about the people he shot at all?
Did KR not have as much right to be there as the people who attacked him?
If they had just stayed home that evening, or at least decided not to chase down a guy with a gun, they would be fine right now.
Tell that to the anti-BLM posters who disagreed with my view.
Sorry, but you don't get to demand what type of post you get any more than I get to demand you ask a question in a particular way.
Well what's your view if you wish to clarify, do you agree the video evidence shows Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defence and as such the correct verdict was met?
Ok, in your opinion was Rittenhouse rightfully acquitted?
It's interest that 3 people responded to my post and each of the 3 of you only referred to him not taking the gun across state lines. (Which I knew, but did phrase my point poorly).
But that doesn't negate the fact that he was a child inserting himself in to a location he really had no business being in, to do a job he wasn't hired or trained to do while carrying a lethal weapon which he didn't own.
By all means focus on the pedantry of whether he crossed state lines or not, the critical points showing how weak the argument is that he should have been there are indisputable.
Yes on the charges of murder. No with respect to the dismissal of the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon. (And I do note he wasn't acquitted on this, it was dismissed)
All hail King Tell me how.
Disagree with his view and forever be called an anti-whatever.
You've got some self appointed grandeur of yourself. I'll give you that.
