936
Kyle Rittenhouse storms off stage after being confronted by students
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
936 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3471 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No judge acquitted him. It was a jury.
The Jury did not get to decide on the gun charges because the Judge threw out the charges hours before closing statements. Any sympathy for this boy should be gone after seeing him use his "fame" to advocate shooting your political opponents, this is his chosen career path for years now.
So not on a murder charge?
Do you think Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a military style rifle and walked the streets for hours pointing it at protestors before shooting three, killing 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, of Kenosha, and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin...
but did not commit murder?
That did not happen... It was mentioned in the trial and everything, the gun was always in the same state, and rittenhouse was already for several days there as they worked there...
I wanna see the evidence of this. (EDIT: There isn't any and they just made it the fuck up lmao)
That guy was caught on video threatening everyone before the shooting happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N70fok1R2Kg
This guy kicked either kicked rittenhouse in the head or hit him in the head with a skateboard lmao. AND rittenhouse tried to flee from him before so not like he even tried to stand his ground lmao.
It is really sad how people spread misinformation about the case, yes rIttenhouse is an idiot, but you're just blatantly lying at this point.
edit: And for the people that keep spreading the lie that the judge was biased, please watch this legal eagle video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
There’s video of that piece of shit saying he wanted to shoot people. It was thrown out by the biased piece of shit judge:
https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce
You’re defending a fucking murderer.
Even legal eagle had to make a video defending the judge because of misinformation about this from people like you lmao:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
They are not a murderer, as much as that pains you. It is a fact. And I can tell you that if you actually watched the damn trial you would come to the same conclusion.
Now onto the news article you linked:
Read this carefully:
That was actually a looting, not just some people exiting a store lol, and yeah rittenhouse said that, it was thrown out because rittenhouse shot no looter. All the people he shot were people that were attacking him, and the one that started all of this was Rosenbaum himself who was going around insulting people and chasing rittenhouse who tried to flee from it.
Yes it is possible that he went there to shoot a looters, but that did not happen, it is a simple fact.
You’re defending a murderer. End of argument.
Is legal eagle also defending a murderer btw?
You’re defending a murderer. Maybe stop it.
Couldnt even answer a simple question lmao. Maybe just maybe it is because you don't like awnser.
What a weird thing you picked that you are willing to lie and spread misinformation and hatred over.
Seems like you don't like how other people think and that makes them deserve to lose their rights, you are also defending a pedophile by your own logic kek.
You’re defending a murderer. Stop it.
It was mentioned by Rittenhouse in his own testimony, of course he would blatantly admit to breaking the laws while on trial unless there were evidence either way.
Are you high? Where do you think he was when these multiple confrontations started? He wasn't brawling people on rooftops or inside of businesses, idiot.
Show the fucking video of rittenhouse walking for hours pointing his gun to multiple people like you just said.
The only video we have before the confrontation is this one that shows rosenbaum threatening other people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N70fok1R2Kg
edit: Also the other person that rittenhouse shot pointed a pistol in his face first, it was also caught on video, what is worse is that they even admitted in the FUCKING TRIAL THAT HE POINTED HIS GUN at rittenhouse. This lead to a famous facepalm by one of the prosecutors lol.
Bro wouldn't convict Rittenhouse without a gopro recording of his entire day lmao
Hey at least edit your comment and remove that blatant lie you still have there saying that rittenhouse pointed his gun at multiple people.
You gain nothing by lying so blatantly my dude, or by making fun of me for asking for evidence of such lie...
And yeah I would not convict people without evidence kek.
At least edit your comment to remove that blatant lie that Rittenhouse was protecting property.
Never said that...
I don't know why you know feel to make lies about me now, did I struck a nerve or something?
Do I think he's an idiot for doing so? Absolutely. Do I think those actions you listed in and of themselves revoke any claim he has to self defense? Absolutely not.
He literally travelled there with a loaded murder-rifle to point it at people and kill them. That's not defence. Nothing about that is defence. It's literally offence, he went there from out of state just to do that.
He claims he was there to protect businesses and help injured people. To claim he went there to kill people is literally just fabricated.
No one asked him to defend their business.
Which has literally absolutely nothing to do with point.
So you're cool with armed vigilantes wandering around and deciding when someone needs to be shot?
No
Why wasn't he up on top of those businesses like his friends? Why was he roaming the streets looking for smoke?
Whether I can answer these questions has no bearing on if your claim that he was there to kill people is true, so I'm not sure why you're asking them.
What a fucking weird hill to die on that You've chosen.
Maybe your little piss baby rittenhouse can help you with that 😆😆
I think he's a huge idiot. If you think he's my boy, it's because you aren't very bright and can't think beyond black and white.
Me, the "not very bright one" is calling you out for being a blind fool.
How does it feel to give up on reality?
The only one actually making an argument here is me. The other just made up some bs claim that I know is wrong because it's about me. It's clear who is comfortable in reality.
READ UP:
https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce
Interesting. Any more context of this video? Although let's me clear, this is him saying he wanted to shoot someone for an unknown reason. Not him saying he wanted to go to Kenosha to shoot people.
The video wasn't allowed because rittenhouse shot no looter, legal eagle explains it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
I'll watch the video when I get a chance, can't right now at work.
But I did want to say I appreciate you actually providing stuff respectfully instead of just attacking and misrepresenting my position.
Yeah it is crazy how misinformation spreads, if you actually go back on reddit and check /r/news the day the ruling happened everybody pretty much knew that was going to be the result because of how much of a shitshow the trial was and that the prosecution had nothing in their case.
But yeah the fact that people still spread blatant lies like "he drove across state lines with the rifle" is very chilling.
It's the same thing with the Zimmerman/Martin. The facts don't matter, just the narrative the originally caught on. Any deviation from this is met with derision. And I'm not saying one side only, I've been attacked by both the people who think Rittenhouse is completely innocent saint that is the victim of biased system, and those who think he is a cold blooded murderer that went there that day with the intent of murdering people. No room for nuance.
The point is that he WANTED to kill people that weren’t a threat. Looting is not a punishment by vigilante murderer offense.
Nobody he killed was doing any looting. So whats the point? He deserves jail sentence for something he didnt do?
Had he opened fire on people that were looting, the trial would have been a totally different thing, they simply attacked him for holding a weapon which is insanely stupid and you are mad that he defended himself lmao.
You’re defending a murderer. Stop it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxoYNpBMaCg
And this is something every lawyer will tell you is reasonable btw.
If they had shot him first, would they be the ones defending themselves from him?
Depends on the context, I guess.
The context was already there for you:
Rittenhouse fired at some who admitted on the stand to pointing the gun at him first. Unless you have evidence that he's actually walking around pointing his gun at people without provocation, you are ironically actually defending him.