I can’t say I’ve paid much attention to this, but is this actually true?
How have they jumped from this to racist?
Is it just because it happened at a BLM protest that turned into a riot?
Trump
- Thread starter ShandyH
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I can’t say I’ve paid much attention to this, but is this actually true?
How have they jumped from this to racist?
Is it just because it happened at a BLM protest that turned into a riot?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,428
i make the jump due to his associations.
Fair enough, far right stuff?
As I said I’ve not paid attention to it as it’s just another USA shooting and merge into one
Razzoo
Well-known member
Zero evidence of racism displayed by Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum the guy he shot was using racial slurs however and he was a convicted paedophile who raped a minor.
Lyndhurst 14
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,154
Once you've lived in the States for a while stories like this no longer surprise you that much
drew
Drew
Can you explain how effective an assault rifle is at putting out a fire? One minute he's EMT and now he's fire crew!!
Motogull
Todd Warrior
- Sep 16, 2005
- 9,988
The whole thing is so fukked up. A minor goes out with a military designed weapon to play real life A Team. In a first world country too, not some 'other' sort of place.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/10-debunked-heinous-lies-about-kyle-rittenhouse-devine/
This column sums up the facts of the case.
This column sums up the facts of the case.
The thing is he wasn't just charged and acquitted of murder. There were five seperate counts of varying degrees of severity and he was acquitted of all five.
Those charges were:
Count 1: First-degree reckless homicide
Under Wisconsin law, this crime is defined as recklessly causing the death of another human being under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life. It is not necessary for prosecutors to prove intent to kill.
Counts 2 and 3: First-degree recklessly endangering safety
The law defines this crime as recklessly endangering another person’s safety under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.
Count 4: First-degree intentional homicide
This crime is defined as causing the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or someone else, without the presence of certain mitigating circumstances specified in the law.
Count 5: Attempted first-degree intentional homicide
I can understand why there may have been a reluctance to find him guilty of counts 4 and 5 and at a push count 1 also, but it's pretty astonishing that he was also acquitted of counts 2 and 3 given the circumstances of him recklessly carrying a rifle which he was not legally entitled to have in his possession, and especially given that he chose to take it to that volatile environment. How can that not be described as "recklessly endangering safety"
Those charges were:
Count 1: First-degree reckless homicide
Under Wisconsin law, this crime is defined as recklessly causing the death of another human being under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life. It is not necessary for prosecutors to prove intent to kill.
Counts 2 and 3: First-degree recklessly endangering safety
The law defines this crime as recklessly endangering another person’s safety under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.
Count 4: First-degree intentional homicide
This crime is defined as causing the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or someone else, without the presence of certain mitigating circumstances specified in the law.
Count 5: Attempted first-degree intentional homicide
I can understand why there may have been a reluctance to find him guilty of counts 4 and 5 and at a push count 1 also, but it's pretty astonishing that he was also acquitted of counts 2 and 3 given the circumstances of him recklessly carrying a rifle which he was not legally entitled to have in his possession, and especially given that he chose to take it to that volatile environment. How can that not be described as "recklessly endangering safety"
Any article that contains the immortal line "to punk liberals, who keep falling for it" is right up there in my book.
Razzoo
Well-known member
I think it's fair to say he was being an all round do-gooder. The rifle was for self defence which it turns out he needed!
Incidentally the 3rd guy he shot in the arm, just as he was going to shoot Kyle was also there as a medic and he too was armed (with an illegal firearm).
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,428
you know his best defense? staying at home. he went to get involved and went tooled up.
Razzoo
Well-known member
Maybe, misguided I agree and I'm sure he probably regrets being there. On the one hand you have Antifa burning, looting, destroying property etc.
Then you have the vigilantes out because the Police were taking a low key approach to events. The two sides were obviously at odds and I have no doubt that for Kyle it was kill or be killed.
Conclusions:- justice was served and America is pretty ****ed up
I live about 2 hours from Kenosha, Wisconsin. (it does take longer because I have to cross the city of Chicago to get there). I will not be stopping in Kenosha in the future or any community that feels that it is okay for a child (17 years old) to bring an AR-15 into a volatile situation like Kenosha had this past summer and doesn't find a way to take a gun away from this person who pretends to help in this situation. He was attacked but the police should have taken the weapon away and sent him home.
Lyndhurst 14
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,154
The New York Post makes the Sun, Mail and Express look positively liberal by comparison
The problem with that is only alternative is the New York Times, which makes the Guardian look positively conservative by comparison.
Are you disputing the facts?
Lyndhurst 14
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,154
Where did I say I was ?
The_Viper
Well-known member
Lots of people are getting a hard lesson that the legal system is not the same as social media lynch mobs with this Kyle Rittenhouse thing. This verdict was nailed on if you pay any kind of attention, because when a key witness and the one guy who survived being shot said he pointed his gun at Kyle first and then because of that the prosecution moved on to "well he's definitely guilty coz he plays call of duty" it was absolutely doomed, and that was during the prosecution making their case ffs. Rittenhouse is an idiot, and shouldn't have been there, and a great example of why the second amendment IMO is out dated and in need of serious reform. He should be remembered as a ****ing moron, but from the minute I watched those videos it was 80% probability he would be acquitted, when I watched the prosecution give their case I was 100% certain of acquittal.
