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.
He just used a gun he didn't own to kill 2 people.
And 2A rights advocates would argue gun control laws are sufficient as they are and in fact need to be rolled back in many instances. That some people think it is ok for a child to have a lethal weapon in public, 4 years before they are deemed to be responsible enough to buy a beer, says a hell of a lot.
"crossing state lines". What a load of nonsense. His father and relatives lived there, and he worked there as a lifeguard.
"didn't own the gun"? What? Your morality is based on anything you can squirrel away behind?
I watched pretty much all of the trial because I was interested in it, and because it was useful for work-related research so I could justify sinking the time.
his entire demeanor was off.
People with PTSD can come across that way.
What has being an American got to do with it
Everything, when it comes to gun possession. If someone's carrying a gun in the middle of Louth it's a very different thing to someone carrying a gun in Winsconsin.
cross state lines
Didn't happen that day. He had stayed overnight with a friend and spent the day helping to clean up the town.
cross state lines with an assault rifle
The gun has never left Winsconsin.
I see others using the defence the poor chap was attacked, what exactly did he expect, to be showered with Roses.
Presumably you apply this same scorn to the assailants who attempted to murder Kyle, yes?
he was absolutely guilty of the lessor offences
He wasn't. That's why he was acquitted for the lesser includeds.
the Judge truely extraordinary and not in a good way
The judge was a little less on the ball than I would have liked. He did a decent enough job of reminding people of the presumption of innocence, but he should have called a mistrial with prejudice and handed out sanctions when the prosecution violated Rittenhouse's 5th amendment rights, suborned perjury, and fabricated evidence at closing.
I believe Andrew Barnes is intending to bring the prosecution's misconduct to the attention of the state bar and seek sanctions. I wish him luck with it.
Now he's being supported by the extreme right wing
Maybe. He's also being supported by anyone with half a brain who doesn't believe everything they read on Twitter.
I'm absolutely convinced this vile creature will be in the news again .
Yeah. But why on earth would anyone expect anything you say to be accurate?
Imagine riots in Newry and you went there to help protect it, and the media said you crossed international borders.
The Venn diagram of people who think it's ok to burn down cities and people who think he deserved to die is a circle.
Google can be used for research, and not just ads you know.
Link
Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.
You've clearly all the answers, dare anyone have an opposite view. Whilst I certainly didn't waste hours of my life looking at this farce, I saw enough to determine it was a farce. I'll leave it at that but now I know where to seek expert legal opinion 😏
You would have crossed international border. And you would have no place going to Newry under such circumstances
My mistake, I understood there was an argument were the Gun (actually assault rifle) was purchased .
Anyway, I've made my opinion on this farce known, I'm leaving it at that .
F ucking hell!
The Venn diagram is a circle 😁 That's a good one.. will file that one away in the ceann 😊
I'd be allowed there legally. If my uncle's farm was under attack and he called for help, and I went and there was an incident, I would not expect that the fact I'm from Monaghan be used in the media to defame me and my intentions. I am allowed to be in Newry in the same way Rittenhouse was allowed to be in Kenosha.
Glad to have been able to help you clear up a few of your many, many misconceptions about this case.
You know where I am if you ever need further education.
I never suggested that you are not legally allowed to be there 🙄
I said that you would have no place going to Newry if there were riots there. And you would cross an international border.
Lol, come across your nonsense before, that didn't end well did it , Gosh your almost at 300 posts, congratulations 👏 😄
It wouldn't be used against me is my point. It's an irrelevant detail that is parroted by people who think crossing a state line is akin to breaking the RICO act.
Surely you understand the difference between counties in Ireland and states in the US. Crossing state lines in the act of committing a crime changes the level of the crime (in many cases) to a federal level.
This changes everything from who investigates the crime, to who prosecutes it.
Aside from that, advocating vigilantism is a very dangerous path to go down. More so when its kids involved.
I changed accounts to use a different email address when Boards moved their data overseas.
That must've been someone else calling you on your bullshit.
Thankfully Kyle Rittenhouse didn't commit any crime though.
Advocating vigilantism is dangerous. I agree. Advocating self defense isn't.
Well he was there already. And had good reason to be there with his father and relatives living there, and him having worked there. Certain people he shot had travelled further and didn't have any reason to be there, and if they did, they were no greater than his.
My god.
So you admit you know **** all about the case and get pissy when your preconceived notions are proven to be ignorant?
And yet somehow act like you have the higher moral ground?
No offence, but you're talking out of your ar$e!
Perhaps you should try familiarizing yourself with the facts of the case, before forming such resolute conclusions.
The interjections made by the judge, were because of quite serious breaches in protocol and procedures by the prosecution during the trial. This was by an experienced prosecutor, who knew exactly what he was doing. But of course the media tried to paint this, as the judge being biased towards Rittenhouse - which was complete nonsense. (however you appear to have swallowed that lie quite easily)
I wouldn't be surprised at all, if there were future disciplinary actions taken against the prosecution (Binger in particular) for their behavior, which was at times disgraceful and completely out of order.
It wasn't an assault rifle.
It's baffling how wrong people can be.
Anyone who believes this, cannot also argue that gun control laws in the US are adequate. If you can travel to a different state, into an area where there is trouble, and use a gun you don't own, to kill two people, without breaking a law (I still maintain the charge of possession of a weapon should not have been dismissed) then there is something seriously wrong. Or do people just want black people to do the same thing when met with police violence?
Nonsense and more Nonsense, I listened to legal analysts commenting on the Judges behaviour throughoutthe trial, indeed at one stage he'd forgotten what he was actually saying. The judges behaviour was universally criticised including the bizzare and confusing instructions to the Jury, I'm beginning to wonder are some on here referring to the same Trial I saw. The defence of this farce is extraordinary
Still shoe-horning race into this? Bizarre
Semantics, it was a rifle and heavy duty , not something this clown got with last years action man set FFS
The judges actions were not universally criticised. The fact that you think they were is indicative that you only watched YouTube videos of people who you agree with.
Hardly **** semantics when you went out of your way to specifically point out it wasn't just a gun, but an assault rifle.
It's just another example of how little you know.
If you can travel to a different state, into an area where there is trouble, and use a gun you don't own, to kill two people
He didn't travel "to kill two people". He was already in Kenosha having stayed with a friend the night before.
The possession charge was dismissed because it should never have been brought; Rittenhouse was legally permitted to have it. They're not allowed to just throw people in jail because they feel like something should be a law.
The stream I listened to had anything from 4-10 lawyers on at any given time, commenting in real time on the ongoing case.
The contempt with which they regard "Lawyer Twitter" and legal "experts" who are on the corporate media payroll was quite something.
Interesting how everyone who listened to them also manages to have a completely warped view of every aspect of the trial.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e406667f1106b31a9de61e5105cdb60f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
