what? The guy who first was killed was just released from a mental hospital? That's the mentally ill person. Plus I believe he was found guilty for touching children.

Why did they chase after him and hunt him down? Why did they grab him? Why didn't they just let him run away? They shot in the air and chased after him for a fight. and kyle defended himself. Case closed.

Dont be a racist pedophile and attack people

You will never convince these people of anything dude. Just wait until the not guilty verdict and say “told ya so”

ThE KiD wOuLdNt HavE KnOwN ThAt

It means you aren't defending yourself. You're part of the problem.

If his intention was self preservation he wouldn't have gone in the first place.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Nov 1 2021 05:14pm

i think black lives matter but how do you promote enriching black lives by burning down the city? the effects from that will for maybe a couple decades. how many black owned shops or stores were burned down? that doesnt help do you think they would be likely to go back to that same place or will they leave and open up shop elsewhere? they probably had so much in tax revenue leave their city which helps the whole community plus having to rebuild right now is stupid expensive. rioting and burning down buildings is the opposite of trying to enrich black llives. Plus blm doesnt believe in the nuclear family. its been proven time and time again a single parent home is less likely to produce succesful children. I think the group BLM is just their to race grift and make themselves wealthy.

You are confused. He killed two people, not three.

The reason why you're legally allowed to shoot an intruder in the middle of the night, without ascertaining that they actually have a weapon, is because they've introduced sufficient uncertainty into the situation to cause you to be fearful for your life.

A mob chasing down Rittenhouse during a violent riot is sufficient cause for him to defend himself. It's really that simple.



Take this to its logical conclusion. It means that he must allow himself to die, or face murder charges, when attacked, without provocation, by a violent mob. I don't think any court in the United States is going to entertain that seriously.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Nov 1 2021 05:16pm

Bro you started this whole thread by saying he opened fire into a crowd of people. This is an untrue statement he is on video being assaulted and put a bullet directly into the individuals who were an immediate threat to him.

You also just said the riot was a peaceful protest.

You have absolutely zero credibility to argue on this topic. You are clearly coming from an emotional standpoint and to save any credibility you have left, you should just stop now.

This post was edited by WickedDarkJuggalos on Nov 1 2021 05:16pm

He did open fire into a crowd of people several times.

It was a peaceful protest until the cops decided to force the peaceful protesters down the street into the armed civilians. Then one of the armed civilians decided it was a good idea to murder 2 people and shoot a third

The kid is going to jail

how much fg u wanna bet?

This post was edited by Crunkt on Nov 1 2021 05:22pm

And? Isn't that called taking responsibility for your actions? Take a look at the George Zimmerman case how different it would be if he was the one who initiated violence (he didn't). Had he did, he would have lost the right to claim self-defense. Obviously the Zimmerman case doesn't mirror this one and we should let the facts dictate the verdict, but there are plenty of scenarios where you lose the right of self-defense. Suppose Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people telling them to go home or he'd blow their head off...do you think he'd still have a self-defense argument?

he shot 3 rounds and hit 3 people thats it in baseball youd be batting 1000