Kyle Rittenhouse Storms Off Stage After Being Confronted by Students

yes, we all saw parts of it, and we all come up to our own interpretations - same with the gloves not fitting, jury came to their own interpretations

 

What a fascinating story

 

He’s just a trashy loser, influenced by the simplisting white supremacy of his family, who enabled him to go to a riot armed.

And then when he realized that a riot is not some images on Fox Noise or a video game, he got scared and started shooting people.

And that made him an instant folk hero to Trump nation.

The protestors who heckled him had a lot to heckle. Cynicism, bigotry, hypocracy and cowardice.

Kyle Rittenhouse will go the way of Joe the Plumber.

 

He did not murder anyone

 

That did not happen

No one thought he was a mass shooter they were pursueing him with murderous intent

 

Wrong

Your comparison is a false equivelancy

OJ did not have video evidence proving self defense

 

Wrong

The weapon was legal and he had every right to be there

It was the BLM rioters who should not have been there

 

WRONG we all saw it and all objective people know the video proves self defense

It is not interpretation but a bald faced lie from many people that you are claiming

 

The guy successfully used the second amendment in self defense. He has nothing to answer to the liberal kids for.

 

What do you mean, "if it was illegal". He was a minor, and the law had a provision against a minor having the specific firearm. Also, of course the sheriff has the law backing him. He's an elected official.

Answer this question, under this scenario. You have some trouble in your town, and you decide, on your own, that you're going to bring your AR-15 downtown to help law enforcement. You get there brandishing your firearm, and you cross paths with the sheriff. He tells you they don't want your help, and either leave the premise or get rid of the firearm. What would you do?

 

He did not claim self defense.

That's true, which makes me wonder why he put himself in that situation.

 

I never said OJ claiied self defense

Rittenhouse did and the video evidence proves him correct

 

You said "OJ did not have video evidence proving self defense"

And I pointed out that he did not need such video, because he did not claim self defense. In his case the prosecution failed to prove he was the killer. Simple.

 

Yes I said that which is not the same as saying he claimed self defense

Rittenhouse did and it was self defense which is the massive difference between the two

 

Do your research. Provide links. I've read up on this in detail. I stand by my statements.

 

Your statements are long since PROVEN FALSE

The weapons sharge was dropped because it was legal for him to carry the weapon

That was decided by a judge who knows the law far better than you


That proves your claim false beyond question

When you imply he had no right to be there while ignoring the mindless BLM rioters it simply proves partisan hypocrisy

 

What did I say earlier?

 

Just clicked the links. Dont know whats the deal here. A group of people asked him questions, then a group of degenerates begin to scream "DEFLEEEEEEECTION!" and made the impression someone left the door open in a zoo.

Why stay on that stage in an atmosphere in which there is no discussion or Q&A possible?

What's the problem with him leaving the stage then? Not his fault it turned out to be impossible.

 

The gun was illegal for a minor to carry by Wisconsin law. The prosecution chose to drop the charge because they wanted to focus on the more serious charges like murder.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge.html

The misdemeanor charge of illegally possessing a dangerous weapon as a minor was much less serious than the felony counts Mr. Rittenhouse faced, and it carried a relatively short sentence.
...
“A jury, perhaps inclined toward compromise, won’t have the gun charge as an option,” Mr. Wright wrote in an email.

And there is also what the sheriff stated about deputization. from Nov, 2020, before any charges were made.

Beth, speaking during a press conference Wednesday, said he declined to do so, noting that if he did, those members would become "a liability to me and the county and the state of Wisconsin."

"There's no way. There's no way I would deputize people," he said.

Beth, who said his initial response was "oh hell no," added that such groups don't actually help police.

"Part of the problem with this group is they create confrontation," he said. "People walking around with guns - if I walk in my uniform with a gun all of you probably wouldn't be too intimated by it because you're used to officers having guns, but if I put out my wife with an AR-15 or my brother with a shotgun or whatever it would be walking through the streets you guys would probably wonder what the heck was going on."

 

Wrong

The law specified a barrel length which the rifle met and was therefore legal

It was legal which is why it was dropped

 

Once again, not legal. Not pursued by prosecution, who chose to drop it. The judge ultimately performs the act of dismissal of a charge.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/nov/17/fact-checking-claims-about-kyle-rittenhouse-shoote/

Claim: "At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision."

Our ruling: False.

On Nov. 15, 2021, the day before the jury began deliberations, the judge in the trial dismissed a misdemeanor charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 against Rittenhouse. The claim we rated was made two days after the shooting.

As we wrote at the time, whether Rittenhouse violated the law by possessing a firearm underage was the subject of ongoing litigation at the time, it was not "perfectly legal."

Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor," with exceptions aimed at allowing children age 16 or 17 to use long guns to hunt.

At a pretrial hearing in October, the judge said the law was murky, but he refused to dismiss the charge at that time. In dismissing it, he said: "I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute."

 

Once again

WRONG

it was legal due to barrel length hence the dismissal

 

Actually, Kyle DISAGREES.
According to Kyle, his "Free Speech Rights" weren't stifled...
Kyle (in his OWN WORDS) stated that he left the stage because the event:
"did a hard cut off time"
and, "just happened to leave at that".

Following the event, Rittenhouse posted a video on X, saying: “Great event! I think it’s funny that a lot of the media is saying that we got booed off stage. In reality we did a hard cut off time and just happened to leave at that."

(Thus, given Kyle's own statement (that the reason he left was the "hard cut off time") clearly any insinuation that his Free Speech Rights were impeded is egregiously misguided).

 

Kyle R: "Waaaaaaaaahhh! I can't defend myself with words!" *scampering off*

 

He likely didn't want to get attacked by another democrat mob. Can't blame the youngin.