[USA] The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Has Begun

p sure cael thinks vanster is a drunken loser but he's too nice to crush his soul
 
ghmZriM.jpg
 
has-been drunks with criminal records for tax evasion and wife beating


broadly speaking
 
It's probably more like he resents being an educated man surrounded by uneducated people who resent him more for being a snob about it.
 
Maybe he resents being 'an educated man' who is also a complete failure in life.
 
time for the tribe to pow wow about it and cast some votes here

psuedo intellectuals dont count

only my educated vote counts

4993137659_9d6e21b345_b.jpg
 
:negro:
Fool said:
Did you just quote a slave owner?
Click to expand...

IF all Christians followed the Christian tenets :banging:

Slavery in America would not have occurred
Besides, :negro: were used to and practiced slavery IN AFRICA

Slavery was/is a business model.
Even the Debil quotes the Bible to suit his POV.:withstupi
 
amRam said:
That's certainly one dumb way to look at it.

It's valid, but it's also obscenely retarded liberal logic.
Click to expand...

:Hmm:
Let's see. SOME homeowners keep a Loaded firearm at home
JUST in case there's a home invasion

Only an idiot goes into goes into a situation where violence is happening
ya gotta be prepared to defend yerselb.

Sure enough, Kyle was attacked even though those 3 rioters SAW
that he was ARMED.
:banging: stoopid = :doom: :reaper:

Those idiots thought they wuz in Portland. :banging:
 
I've come to the conclusion that the Kenosha DA only decided to bring Rittenhouse to trial to pacify the Leftoids that were demanding that he be brought up for murder. They never had any intention of convicting him. All of the prosecution's witnesses have been making the case that it was self-defense. That's how shitty their case is against him.
 
Here is Ayoob talking about defending against riots and mobs.


Ayoob on Kenosha
THOUGHTS ON KENOSHA |
We are less than three weeks out from the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old when he was caught up in the Kenosha, Wisconsin riots and wound up shooting three “protesters” with an AR15 rifle, killing two. We’ll discuss that case shortly here, but I’d like to share something else first.

The riot was triggered when a Kenosha police officer shot one Jacob Blake after they responded to a domestic disturbance. People with agendas screamed, “A white cop shot an unarmed black man seven times in the back,” and that’s what triggered the riot.

If you were reading this blog back when it happened, you saw the picture I posted of Jacob Blake seconds before the shooting, with a knife in his hand!

Only recently has the officer who fired finally been officially exonerated. Read about it here.

The riot that burned a city and led to more deaths was a direct result of people with political (and $$$) agendas spreading lies.

The cop is cleared, deservedly in my opinion. Young Rittenhouse is still under the Sword of Damocles.
Click to expand...

More on Rittenhouse
MORE ON THE RITTENHOUSE CASE |
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse begins November first, and it will be most informative to anyone who keeps or carries a firearm. He was 17 when he shot three men, killing two, in the riot that took place in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police shot a knife-wielding man attempting to kidnap little kids in a car. Unfortunately, the press accepted the BS story that the cop had shot an unarmed man, hence the conflagration.

Let me be clear: I am in no way involved in this case. Nor do I usually comment on cases that have not yet been adjudicated. I am making an exception here because there has been SO much BS touted about this incident and the upcoming trial.

I hear people blaming Rittenhouse because they think he went looking for trouble. I expect the defense team will be able to show the jury that this was a kid who wanted to be in law enforcement in the future, had already worked as a lifeguard and as a volunteer cleaning up graffiti and such, and was also trained in first aid. In addition to the AR15 rifle (which we’ll get to momentarily), he carried life-saving rescue gear and I’m told actually applied it to injured people while in Kenosha at that fateful time.

People down him for taking a rifle illegally across state lines; my understanding is that he didn’t, and that the gun never left Wisconsin once it was shipped to a Federal Firearms License(d) gun dealer.

It is said that he was a “straw purchaser” of the gun. My understanding is that he gave his legal-age friend in Wisconsin money to buy it for him and hold it until he turned 18 (because he feared AR15s would be banned by then) and would be legal to accept its transfer through an FFL. If that is true, the buying of the gun by Rittenhouse’s friend with Rittenhouse’s money in hopes of a legal transfer in the future could be a solid defense to that accusation.

But before legal age he was carrying that gun illegally on streets in Wisconsin, his accusers cry. If I was on the kid’s defense team, the argument I’d use would be Doctrine of Necessity. This doctrine is also known as the Doctrine of Competing Harms or, in some other states, the Doctrine of Two Evils. As the latter implies, it reflects a basic ethos we all learned as kids: when faced with a choice of ONLY two evils, the moral and ethical person must choose the lesser of those evils.

Kyle Rittenhouse, who had allegedly gone to Kenosha from his home in Illinois only some fifteen miles away, had done so to help the injured people he’d heard of in the news reports, to clean up graffiti, etc. during the riots. Once he got there, things escalated through no fault of his, and he was asked to stand guard at a riot-vulnerable place of business. There was random gunfire, and literally armored vehicles patrolling the streets, like something out of an apocalypse movie. The Doctrine of Necessity holds that one should be held harmless for breaking the law in a situation where following the law could cause more harm than breaking it. This is triggered by an exigent circumstance, an extreme emergency in the immediate here and now. The situation Rittenhouse faced fits that description and should be a solid defense against his possession of the AR15 rifle, given to him by his friend when things escalated and gunfire started before Rittenhouse ever pulled the trigger.

And, let’s not forget, even the anti-gun New York Times published a piece admitting that the three shootings themselves were justified in the unique circumstances of each.

So, yeah, Kyle Rittenhouse in my view is defensible in every element being thrown at him, and I hope his legal counsel is wise enough to use that Doctrine of Competing Harms argument along with the other facts they have going in this case.

The comments page is open, folks: go for it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top