Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty

Prosecution is making their closing argument now. Nothing but BS of course.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
oh no doubt! But he wanted to be attacked 8 suspect to show his skillz.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Prosecution is making their closing argument now. Nothing but BS of course.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
oh no doubt! But he wanted to be attacked 8 suspect to show his skillz.

He's literally on audio expressing how he'd like to shoot people days before. So yeah, possible.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not everyone's reaction is to run from a gun. Why are you so stupid?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
He is trolling again. It's ridiculous atm.

Everyone's reaction is to run from a gun.

Why woukdn't it be? Only an idiot picks a fight with an armed person.

Originally posted by cdtm
Everyone's reaction is to run from a gun.

Why woukdn't it be? Only an idiot picks a fight with an armed person.

Originally posted by cdtm
Everyone's reaction is to run from a gun.

Factually untrue. Some people run from guns, other's charge if they perceive they'd have a better chance.

Originally posted by Robtard
Factually untrue. Some people run from guns, other's charge if they perceive they'd have a better chance.

So in super narrow specific context based on survival odds.

They do not pick a fight with an armed person. No one does this except idiots.

Fact is you're wrong, not everyone runs, some charge. Couldn't care less if you call them "idiots", they're still victims though.

Did you call the unarmed person who confronted the El Paso shooter an "idiot" too?

Nah, they were thugs who deserved what they got. 👆

Rittenhouse is innocent.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, they were thugs who deserved what they got. 👆

Rittenhouse is innocent.

Is that what Jesus taught you?

We will see soon enough what the verdict is.

Okay, seriously Klaw, "get off" means to ejaculate.

Why has no one pointed this out. 😂

Originally posted by cdtm
And accusing a 17 year old kid of "White crocodile tears" isn't racism, or hate?

He's a kid who got scared. Even calling him an "alt-right icon" is a smear, he's just a kid who was trying to do what he thought was right.

It is not an accusation. Dry Eyes = No Tears. So it is just an act designed to garner sympathy, and escape consequences. That is sociopathic.

His bail was nearly revoked for associating with white supermacists. It is not a smear if it is true.

Looks like the prosecutor is gonna blather on... and on... and on... and on for rest of day with his horseshit. All i hear is blah, blah,blah, he is only one who had an AR-15 blah, blah, blah, he is only one who shot anyone blah, blah, blah, blah... *yawn*

Originally posted by cdtm
No, this is me talking based on video. First they chased him down, then he shot them.

The gun is irrelevant to the fact they hunted him down as he was fleeing.

If this was a home invasion and the armed home owner chased and shot a fleeing invader, would you be siding with the home owner?

Yet Rittenhouse is the one chased. How is this any different?

Because this is not a home invasion, nor is it his home, retard. Try harder.

Originally posted by cdtm
The fact they chased him is not speculation.

Again, would you support a home owner chasing after the person who broke into their home as they were fleeing?

It actually unlawful to shoot someone who is fleeing, because he is no longer a threat. That is why home invaders have sued home owners for injuries, and won.

Yeah, if your home is invaded and you pull out a gun and they flee, you'll get sentenced if you chase them down the street and shoot them, or even strike them with a club. They've left your home. Threat over; phone the police.

The judge dismissed tbe possession of a dangerous weapon charge...

Apparently the assault rifle Rittenhouse used to murder his victims is not a dangerous weapon.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It actually unlawful to shoot someone who is fleeing, because he is no longer a threat. That is why home invaders have sued home owners for injuries, and won.

You're ruining all their murder revenge fantasies with your silly facts.

Originally posted by cdtm
Everyone's reaction is to run from a gun.

Why woukdn't it be? Only an idiot picks a fight with an armed person.

If a pedestrian gives a driver the finger, is the driver justified in running him over? Because that is exactly what you are arguing.

The operator, whether it is of a car or a gun, bears the sole responsibility to ensure he does not harm other people with it. It does not matter one iota if he is provoked.

In fact, if he cannot operate safely under pressure, then he is not qualified to be licensed in the first place. And in this particular case, it was illegal for him to even possess that firearm in the first place.

Hell, he was not even legally permitted to be there. But for his preceding illegal actions, none of this would have happened, regardless of whether you think he was justified.