The Ballad of Kyle Rittenhouse

[SoldierOfTheKing]

If you truly believe that these two scenarios are comparable, then I really don't know what to say to you.

This is the real reason why the verdict in the Rittenhouse case caused so much outrage. It wasn't about what happened to Rosenbaum of Huber or Grosskreutz. It was that if Rittenhouse can shoot BLM activists and be found not guilty by reason of self-defense, that he was defending his own life from would-be murderers who were trying to take it from him, it's effectively branding Antifa/BLM as gangsters. So the comparison with the Zeta cartels is not unreasonable.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Kyle was a hero protecting property from a BLM mob.

 

[rjs330]

Batman really shouldn’t have been a superhero in all honesty.
He was just a mentally ill millionaire vigilante with ptsd and lots of cool toys. Poor guy.

Remember, Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then ALWAYS be Batman.

 

[rjs330]

Right. You'll only get the truth from alternative media who don't have any political agenda and are committed to fair and honest reporting. Regardless of any claims to the opposite, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines and killed people with a military rifle "protecting" property that wasn't his.

Did you miss the point that he fired in self defense and NOT in defense of the property? How can you miss that? Is that on purpose or are you just that misinformed?

 

[rjs330]

It is absolutely astonishing to me that, on a Christian forum, anyone can justify killing another person. The sixth commandment says that it is against God's law to kill and Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Kyle Rittenhouse killed two other people. Period. Simply because a secular jury acquitted Rittenhouse doesn't mean that he didn't violate the clear commands of God. He is guilty before God. Period.

When he faces God and is condemned to hell, he will just have to deal with it.

Are the people who attacked him also guilty before God and won't they face God and be condemned to hell? Where's your condemnation of them?

 

[rjs330]

Kyle was a hero protecting property from a BLM mob.

Yes he was and he was attacked for it. And then he shot them for attacking him. He did not shoot them for attacking the property.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Yes he was and he was attacked for it. And then he shot them for attacking him. He did not shoot them for attacking the property.

Yes.

 

[rjs330]

He killed two people after crossing state lines with a military rifle. God will decide the issue, not 12 people who were convinced by the defense attorney that Rittenhouse was not guilty of the specific crime for which he was charged.

This is why you shouldn't be judging anyone. Cause you have no clue as to what really happened. Your judgement is NOT righteous. It's filled with falsities.

 

[rjs330]

So? Did he know that when he shot them? No. Their criminal history certainly makes them less sympathetic in retrospect, but it had zero impact on the situation as it happened.

This is true. That is why juries are not allowed to know about a person's past actions. It could prejudice them.

Each case is decided on its own merits.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

if Rittenhouse can shoot BLM activists and be found not guilty by reason of self-defense, that he was defending his own life from would-be murderers who were trying to take it from him, it's effectively branding Antifa/BLM as gangsters.

That's a pretty big leap of logic there.

My primary concern with the verdict is that it validates the idea of carrying guns to protests. Protests are highly-charged, emotional situations where tempers can run high. Carrying a gun into such a situation - especially openly - is asking for trouble. It will not surprise me if we see a rise in similar incidents moving forwards - and not all of them will end so well for the gun-toting vigilantes.

 

[pescador]

Kyle was a hero protecting property from a BLM mob.

Not his property and not BLM! Get your facts straight.

 

[pescador]

Did you miss the point that he fired in self defense and NOT in defense of the property? How can you miss that? Is that on purpose or are you just that misinformed?

He was in a gun battle and killed two people. He will have to live with that for the rest of his life, then face God to explain why he violated the command not to kill and refused to turn the other cheek.

And you think that I am misinformed?

 

[IWalkAlone]

Not his property and not BLM! Get your facts straight.

So BLM wasn't burning property? They said they would burn down the system.

 

[pescador]

So BLM wasn't burning property? They said they would burn down the system.

Get your facts straight.

Rittenhouse: "I support the BLM movement."

 

[IWalkAlone]

Get your facts straight.

Rittenhouse: "I support the BLM movement."

And? He obviously didn't support BLM looters and arsonists

 

[98cwitr]

He was in a gun battle and killed two people. He will have to live with that for the rest of his life, then face God to explain why he violated the command not to kill and refused to turn the other cheek.

And you think that I am misinformed?

Just so we're clear: Kyle should have let them kill him? Be like Jesus and let them kill you? Is that the angle?

 

[Parmallia]

Just found out about this and thought I would share. If the woke media won't tell the truth, we have some good banjo bards who will sing it out!

Did Kyle kill criminals? Wouldn't that require a court of law to ascertain? Were they tried in the same way the Kyle was?

We know Kyle wasn't a criminal, he was just a well-meaning young boy who grabbed a gun that wasn't his and ran into a riot and wound up being the only person there who had to kill people. Almost as if he went out of his way to put himself in danger so that he could have a reason to "protect himself" from the danger he knowningly went into!

Kyle got a fair trial so we know HE wasn't a criminal. But we don't need to worry about those other people...they were obviously criminals because Kyle had to kill them on the spot. Without a trial.

 

[Parmallia]

Just so we're clear: Kyle should have let them kill him? Be like Jesus and let them kill you? Is that the angle?

No, Kyle shouldn't have let them kill him. Kyle should have stayed home with mommy like the little boy he is and he SHOULDN'T have grabbed a gun and gone SEEKING OPPORTUNITIES TO SHOOT PEOPLE.

Kyle looked for danger and he found it. Kyle PUT HIMSELF in danger and then wants us to believe his tears when he had to defend himself against that same danger.

Kyle shouldn't have let anyone kill him. Kyle should have stayed away and not killed anyone either.

 

[bekkilyn]

Did Kyle kill criminals? Wouldn't that require a court of law to ascertain? Were they tried in the same way the Kyle was?

We know Kyle wasn't a criminal, he was just a well-meaning young boy who grabbed a gun that wasn't his and ran into a riot and wound up being the only person there who had to kill people. Almost as if he went out of his way to put himself in danger so that he could have a reason to "protect himself" from the danger he knowningly went into!

Kyle got a fair trial so we know HE wasn't a criminal. But we don't need to worry about those other people...they were obviously criminals because Kyle had to kill them on the spot. Without a trial.

Here are the criminal records of those that attacked Kyle Rittenhouse

 

[IWalkAlone]

Get your facts straight.

Rittenhouse: "I support the BLM movement."

So you are saying because Kyle said after the fact that he supports BLM, that he couldn't have been attacked by BLM before he said it? Thats not logical