[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
That would be provocation. Rittenhouse didn't do that. He was there to defend a property and provide medical help not look for trouble. Big difference.
share[deleted]
Oh, it was not! Wisconsin is an open carry state so you are saying if my Ruger is visible I’m provoking violence? 🙄
share[deleted]
He didn't walk into a riot, they went to him, chased him, and beat him. They also beat up and killed people who weren't armed at all, without provocation.
I you don't see the problem with rioting, looting, and beating up and killing innocent people, we can't help you...
I question the wisdom of ANYONE marching into a riot zone (armed or unarmed). The question seems to be, were any laws broken?
Since the trial was on self-defense, the jury didn't hold him liable.
Why can't the radical left accept this and move on? All weekend, they've been reporting FAKE NEWS. Get over yourselves!
[deleted]
Why should it have been brought up? That's not what happened. Rittenhouse didn't go there to provoke anyone. He went there to help. The gun was for defense. Since people attacked him, I'd say it was smart of him to have the gun.
Since the rioters also attacked unarmed people, you can't argue that the only reason they attacked Kyle was because he had a gun.
[deleted]
And those rioting, looting, and burning property they didn't own weren't?
[deleted]
The same police who are vilified by Antifa and BLM and who were ordered to stand down?
Either way, it doesn't address my comment as to whether those looting, rioting and burning property they didn't own is or isn't provocative.
[deleted]
That's like saying it's ok to sexually assault a woman because she's wearing tight revealing clothing. Is that what you're saying?
shareI see you have no idea what the laws are.
shareTechnically, you're correct. But the correct thing for the pedo and wife beater and grandma puncher to do would be to alert the police and let them take care of it.
(It may have been legal for a child to walk down the street with a gun taller than him, but during a riot, I imagine the police would have told him to go home)
The court ruled that it was not. Time for you to accept reality and drop your political bias.
shareWhy didn’t you said that in your Op Doggielemming? You’re slipping.
BTW you’ll be hitting the block list with your 13posts by end of day. You’re welcome.
defend a property and provide medical help not look for trouble.
SECURITY CHIEF RITTENHOUSE M.D.
You can try but you won't succeed.
shareThe 3 buttheads in Kenosha didn’t “approach” Kyle. They attacked him! Apples & oranges! Your question is nonsensical!🙇🏼♀️
shareThis is the perfect example of someone who thinks they are clever when they are not.
1 out of 10 for troll attempt.
I love how the actual people who attacked kyle are getting defended by internet wierdos but kyle who defended himself is getting attacked by internet wierdos who don't know the facts or law.
The logic is astounding by some people.
No, and that was not the case with Kyle Rittenhouse, however if you start walking away, they start chasing you, you trip and fall and then they attack you and try to take your gun then you can shoot them.
share1. That's not remotely what happened.
2. You're a dumbass.
3. Legally, yes. IF the firearm is legal. I'm not a lawyer so LOL
4. If an unarmed person attacks an armed person. LOL. Well he is fucking retarded
RETARDED..
In the future, don't do that thing.
Defend themselves from what? Words? I'm not even on Rittenhouse's side, but this is a STUPID argument.
share