Not Guilty on all counts...

stevil · Nov 21, 2021

JacksBratt said:
I don't think that his bringing a gun was his excuse. Self defense was what they found in court. If he didn't have the gun, or didn't use it, he would probably be just another casualty of these "protests".

There is nothing at all that suggests anyone would have died if this kid didn't bring a gun.

trophy33 · Nov 21, 2021

RDKirk said:
In self-defense, a weapon is not necessary if the assailants have numbers, youth, or masculinity in their advantage.

I see, but the first kill was not of this kind.

Kyle was younger, more masculine, with a big gun and the man seemed to be pretty alone, on the video. And the man attacked by throwing a plastic bag.

trophy33 · Nov 21, 2021

HARK! said:
Here in the U.S., one is presumed innocent, until proven guilty. The burden of proof is not on innocence, but on guilt.

My question is why he was not proven guilty specifically in the case of the first kill, because I saw this one on video and it looked like a wrong kill, more a mistake.

If you do not have more info, just these general statements, then its not helpful.

HARK! · Nov 21, 2021

myst33 said:
My question is why he was not proven guilty specifically in the case of the first kill, because I saw this one on video and it looked like a wrong kill, more a mistake.

If you do not have more info, just these general statements, then its not helpful.

Do you have a link to the video?

trophy33 · Nov 21, 2021

HARK! said:
Do you have a link to the video?

I cannot find it anymore, youtube probably removed it...

HARK! · Nov 21, 2021

myst33 said:
I cannot find it anymore, youtube probably removed it...

Here is what the up close eye witnesses said:

Ana the Ist · Nov 21, 2021

RaymondG said:
Have you watched the first shooting? If not, I suggest you do so. I did not believe they should have voted guilty after the case the prosecution brought.

I do, however believe that the He knew that he was going into a hostile environment...so he took a gun with him.

Indeed. The media depictions of those riots varied widely depending upon your source.

Hard to say you are scared for your life when you went there with deadly force so you wouldnt have to be scared.

That's a rather large assumption. I think we can say he prepared for a potentially deadly situation....but we can't assume his feelings unless there was some evidence presented.

Why would you be scared of you can just kill anyone who comes at you.

You can't.

You can demand that others stop rioting and if they choose to attack you for trying to give them orders....you can just kill them. no need to be scared. You did what you had legal right to do.....it would seem.

He has no authority to give orders.

Im sure he felt that waving the gun around would stop others from attacking him, which is why he brought it there.....He also felt it would make others take his orders as well...... And because these turned out to not be the case, he had to kill a few people.......But I do not believe he went there to kill people....it was just a result of his plans going sour......people not being as afraid of ar-15s as he thought they should have been. He will have a better plan next time.

Did he give someone "orders"?

I didn't watch or read about the trial.

If there was some kind of evidence of this, I'd like to hear about it.

Ana the Ist · Nov 21, 2021

HARK! said:
Do you have a link to the video?

Again, I didn't watch the case. Only saw the first video released.

Nithavela · Nov 21, 2021

stevil said:
The other guys were in self defence mode, especially after the first person was shot dead. They needed to get the gun of this kid before he killed any more people.

No, what THEY needed to do was steer clear from him and inform the police.

Except the police had pulled back because THEY were out of control.

RaymondG · Nov 21, 2021

Bobber said:
First about a year ago when this was more in the news I posted I think on this site that I don't believe he should have went. He was too young and should have let the police deal with it. Police it was thought weren't doing anything about it thus some were standing up against anarchy .

I still said as his parent I would have wrestled him to the ground and not let him go. Still not his fight. I said though if this was HIS HOME and he had dear family members, young kids, elderly grandparents in HIS BUILDING then I said he has every justification to protect himself. All well and good to say let the police handle it while the first floor of your building is set on fire. In the name of sanity somebody has got to stand up.

But OK he came from another state. Agreed. Shouldn't have done that. How he got his gun. Perhaps not good I agree. That however does not go to say he had intent to kill anyone and it seems that's what the jury decided. Sure he might have known his words and and presence alone wouldn't be enough....but why couldn't it be said his presence with a gun might make his opposition think twice about seeking to attack him? So it comes down to you're innocent UNTIL proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. You have to prove he actually had INTENT going there to kill. How are you going to do that unless you have some phone record where he verbalizes such an intent?

I do not believe he committed murder. I believe he went there to make demands to men hoping that they would fear the loaded gun he carried and just do what he said. When this plan backfired, he had to kill some of them.

This is not murder....but the possibility of killing people was in the plan, which is why the gun was there and was loaded.

RaymondG · Nov 21, 2021

HARK! said:
Yet shots were fired before Rittenhouse shot the man who was attempting to take Rittenhouse's gun, after threatening to murder him.

I know...those details really aren't relevant to the agenda of the riotous arsonists.

The guy who tried to take his gun, did so after Rittenhouse killed someone with it. And even after this, he chose not to kill Rittenhouse.... Which he was capable of going.

RaymondG · Nov 21, 2021

Valletta said:
That's quite a narrative. And you know what Rittenhouse intended and was thinking how?

It's called looking at evidence and using common sense.... just like the jurors had to....... only I'm not forced to ignore certain facts like they were.

High Fidelity · Nov 21, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Do you mean...

Because prosecutors wouldn't have charged him without any pressure to do so from the public?

No. I mean someone forcing a situation in which someone died and bears none of the responsibility.

Peter J Barban · Nov 21, 2021

A lot of negative opinions about Kyle are ignoring court testimony and numerous eyewitness accounts published shortly after the incident. At the time, Kyle said that his purpose was to help people and all the video and witnesses agree with him. Why would you think you know better? Most likely you have been manipulated by liars in the media and political operatives.

Even in the opening statements, the prosecutor lied to the jury and said that the evidence would show that Kyle chased down someone and shot him in the back like a dog. The prosecutor lied as he had no such evidence, but the media was now about to repeat the charge as true.

*Starlight* · Nov 21, 2021

stevil said:
Noone tried to kill him.
Some of them reached for his gun, to disarm the crazy boy with killer intent.

He was putting out a fire when he was attacked. That’s literally the opposite of "killer intent" on his side.

Bobber · Nov 21, 2021

RaymondG said:
This is not murder....but the possibility of killing people was in the plan, which is why the gun was there and was loaded.

Yes. But that's the same with every Police officer that carries a gun right? You could say the possibility of killing people is in some plan and that's why their guns are loaded. Doesn't mean an officer has intent he's going to discharge his weapon. I'd like to believe for most of them they'd rather not. And what do they call police? PEACE officers.

Norbert L · Nov 21, 2021

BBAS 64 said:
The next rich young man

Why are you describing him as rich?

The income level of his family was not brought up. It's not as if Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates are his uncles.

There is nothing on that webpage about his or his families wealth, so why do you think he is rich?

cow451 · Nov 21, 2021

JacksBratt said:
As it should be.

I always get a chuckle out of the guy that needs his manhood on display.

cow451 · Nov 21, 2021

Peter J Barban said:
A lot of negative opinions about Kyle are ignoring court testimony and numerous eyewitness accounts published shortly after the incident. At the time, Kyle said that his purpose was to help people and all the video and witnesses agree with him.

I’ve never met a paramedic or EMT carrying an AR-15. He was a thrill seeker. That doesn’t change the facts related to the charges before the jury. But let’s not paint him as a saint or a demon. He was just an immature foolish kid with a deadly weapon.

JacksBratt · Nov 21, 2021

rambot said:
If the logic is Jesus didn't say not to, abortions are on the table again.

Oh, wow...

Can you not get it. The commandment "thou shall not kill" is not for war, self defense, providing food, judicial sentencing for crimes or anything like that.

This commandment is for murder.... and abortion is the taking of a human life while it is totally defenseless.
The woman has the right to what happens to her body... The child is not her body. It is a separate life.

Not Guilty on all counts...

Godless and without morals

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

שמע

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

our world is happy and mundane

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Standing with Ukraine.

Standing with Ukraine.

Searching for Truth

Similar threads