Kyle Rittenhouse Book Sparks Uproar

Yeah! Our version emphasises what a complete numpty cocksplatt he was

 

I think a lot of the people that argue this side of it really want Kyle to be guilty. Because him being not guilty means that they're actually is a reason to own guns. And it takes apart everything that they believe.

 

Some, but not all. There was 15000 people in Washington DC on January 6th. Most listened to President Trump on the steps of the Supreme Court. A 1000 to 1500 were at the Capitol Steps. The crowd that listened to Presdent Trump began walking towards the Capitol about 1:50 pm. It takes 30 minutes to get there. About 2:01pm, right after VP Pence denied Arizona's delegation to challenge the election results. the insurrection happened. And that is where 1000 to 1500 people participated in 7 fronts against capitol police. The point is, not all who were MEGA supporters of Trump committed insurrection just as not all BLM protesters rioted, damaged property, etc. In fact, many of the BLM protests were peaceful including one in my area, and there were several in Downtown Dallas Fort Worh, and in some the suburban areas where no business property was damaged.

 

Not according to the testimony at trial. Sorry, but you are getting your information from conservative news sites who do not have a reputation for telling the truth in all things. Other than that, you are making things up as you go along to placate your political idealogy.

Unless you can show from the actual transcripts at trial that he attacked Rittenhouse, with physical evidence, then you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and simply regurgitating what you heard on conservative media, no matter the source. The ultimate decider is the transcript.

Since you are dead set, pun intended, on the gun residue, consider this link from Law and Crime. It says and testimony from the ME Kelly by the lead defense Attorney Richards, "Richards asked Kelley to agree that Rosenbaum had “forward momentum” when the initial shots were fired. Richards noted that soot stippling — deposits of other chemicals which discharge from the barrel of a gun when it is fired — were on Rosenbaum’s ring and middle fingers, but not on his pinkie finger." That is not a lot of soot to suggest he was attacking him. It does suggest Rosenbaum was very close to KR, but that is all it says. Inference can be they were up close and personal arguing or that he had "forward momentum" when he was shot, which means he was either walking or lunging forward. That may or may not mean "attacking" as you proclaim, but it is definiely what the idiots on conservative media want to tell you and you fell for it, lock stock, and barrel. Based on your suggestion, I expected a hell of a lot more gun residue on his hands than just on two fingers and not his pinky.

Think about how your hands grab a gun. Your hands, all five fingers should be on it. If shots were fired, then all five should have gun residue right? How in the hell can you grab a firearm with someone holding it and only have your ring and middle finger. The entire exchange was hypothetical by the defense to suggest self-defense. However, the slight of trick by the defense was to get the ME to agree to their hypothetical situation and was not something that could have happened since there was only soot on two fingers and not on the entire hand.

I guess you never had gun residue test before? If you ever fired a gun, and had a gun residue test, that residue test will show pretty much on all of your hand where you held the firearm, assuming you didn't wash your hands prior to the test. Sorry, but you loose on this count because testimony from the trial does not support your claim as factual. It is hypothetical, but not factual.

 

Which shows that you know nothing of the cultural history of the Burka. It is simply a piece of clothing with huge cultural significance in Afghanistan that goes back over one millennia and before Islam came to Afghanistan.

 

That is a crock! Police watched blacks commit arson and barely did a thing! Oh yeah.....peaceful protest!

 

That's an intentional untruth.

 

OK I will try to explain this to you since your argument is way off track

you've probably heard the oft repeated mantra that no matter how a woman dresses-it does not justify her being sexually assaulted. Now that would mean if the woman was dressed like a stripper or if she was doing the EXACT opposite. what would that be?

 

Hard to imagine why someone would get emotional about a book. Buying and reading it is optional. Did someone mistakenly buy a copy?

 

Alwayssa has demonstrated an inability to think repeatedly.

I asked this same question on page one. If an underage woman is in a bar, meaning illegally, does she lose the right to defend herself because she shouldn't have been there? I mean hell, Kyle wasn't anywhere illegally.

 

Actually forensics showed that Rosenbaum reached for Rittenhouse's gun. And yes, lunging at another person in such a situation IS an attack. What in the world would make you think otherwise?

As far as Ziminsky goes, the judge did not bar Ziminsky from testifying. Neither the prosecutor, or the defense attorney's called on him to testify.

LINK: Joshua Ziminski: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know (heavy.com)



Note: The video I just put in has the defense attorney talking to the judge about why the prosecution would not call Ziminski to testify. Go to the 1hour 37 minute mark. Clearly Ziminski was not barred from testifying. The prosecution simply refused to call him up.

 

Yeah I thought it was pretty obvious that no matter how a woman dresses, does not justify sexual assault and wearing a burka is a sign that a woman is doing everything possible to cloak and hide her sexuality. Most people seem to understand the point I was making

 

Hey man don't argue with the burka expert

 

it seemed that my point was rather obvious-a burka being the least provocative or alluring manner of dressing a woman can use

 

yeah, I couldn't care less, same as the OJ book, I do wonder if the families suing him will get the profits though like they did in the OJ case

 

Really, who was he actively shooting before being attacked?
Or do you not know what an active shooter is?

He also had the right to defend himself from being attacked.
If you think you have the right to attack an armed citizen just because they are armed, go try it and let us know how it works out for ya. lol

 

Which has what to do with the ones Rittenhouse shot again?

 

According to the actual video at the trial, which overrules any false testimony.
Maybe you should watch it.
Or maybe you did but still refuse you own eyes.

 

Highly unlikely.... everybody with a lick of sense knows to avoid anything by Killer Kyle (assuming his name will be on the front cover)

But I can show you plenty of examples of people being emotional over real books, if you'd care to watch...

 

The "uproar" turned out to be several tweets in social media.

 

Most people dont open fire so easily, but if you can persuade the jury that you feared for your life, then the self-defense law applies as it did in KR case. The guy is dead so we'll never know if he was actually intending to harm KR or if he was just messing with the kid. You'd have to be fairly stupid, or drunk, to actually attack a guy with an AR15. Well, it was stupid either way.

 

Given an unfortunate situation, I engage danger.
Guess the moral of the story is dont be armed while doing so or you give the active shooter an alibi.

Edit: Happy turkey day!.

 

It usually does...

 

Suuuure you do. What happened to the 3 criminals who tried it with Rittenhouse?

Guess the moral of the story is dont be armed while doing so or you give the active shooter an alibi.[/QUOTE]
An Active shooter is a term is primarily used to characterize shooters who are targeting victims indiscriminately and at a large scale. Yet Rittenhouse only shot individuals attacking him.
Which is why he was found not guilty.

 

Yes. However they assumed KR was an 'active shooter' after he shot the first guy and then took off running. They gave chase (bad idea) and the rest is history. He was not an active shooter, but rather a scared teenager trying to get away from the scene. He was found not guilty, and the verdict is final.