Kyle Rittenhouse Shouldn’t Even Be On Trial

I lived three miles from a State line. Crossed it regularly and never gave it a thought. Usually to swim in a stone quarry or to buy beer.

 

He has not been. He probably won't be. Yes it is possible for them to do so but it is a triviality and they are too busy losing on all the other charges.

 

No you are not required by law.

You could however back up the argument with the statute.

 

That's the purpose.
Had a private investigation happened, there would be considerable doubt about the facts surrounding the case.

 

I bring it up because he went out of his way to participate in an armed conflict.

He wasn't defending his neighborhood from violence. I'm not saying it has any bearing legally, just that it influences my opinion of Kyle.

 

I think the person that made this into a thing is Anna kasparian she seems to think that there's a problem there.

 

first off so what. Second not really people who live right next to state lines it isn't out of their way to go across state lines.

it shouldn't. It was 15 minutes away from his home.

You know I lived in Wyoming in a town just across the border from Colorado I could walk to Colorado in a few minutes. You do understand sometimes states have cities right next to the stateline. He actually worked in the city he was in.

Also what about rioters that had no business there?

 

All the liberals use it! Today we found out Rittenhause's father lives there, but noooooooo he has no business crossing the State Line. It's like the days of Bonnie and Clyde all over again!

 

I knew a girl who had the Ohio/Indiana state line run right through her back yard!

 

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about this case there is to know, because I do not. But I DO know that I saw a video where one of the "victims" (deserved if you ask me) was about to bash the guy's skull in with a skateboard. To me, that is the very definition of a good self-defense shoot, and if you disagree, then perhaps your definition of what is and isn't self defense needs to be adjusted. As for the other two, I don't know, I'll leave it to the jury and hope that justice actually prevails. But for at least that one, it's crystal clear self defense.

 

That was the second victim who had chased a man with a gun who had just shot someone

 

You guys really need to quit calling the far left liberals they are not liberals they are anti liberal.

I just remember seeing any casparian make a big deal about it on The Young Turks and I don't think anyone knows why she did and I don't think the people repeating it know why that she did. They just think it's a good argument so they keep using it.

 

Back when I lived in Wyoming I would go to Colorado all the time in Colorado was more fun than Wyoming.

 

Who already battered him once while chasing him and battering him again when he fell then grabbed his gun while the crowd was yelling to kill him.

 

That isn't an indication of anything but private interests have private interests.

Possibly even influenced by the federal government who seems to want to take away Kyle's right to life

 

The first person he shot was chasing him, threatening to kill him, grabbing at his firearm.

If you tried to take a firearm from somebody who's not using it to threaten you then you're asking for deadly force to be applied to you and it should be.

Taking a weapon from somebody means you are a threat to their life.

 

He worked there. His father, grandmother and aunt live there and he would stay at his fathers sometimes.

 

What the hell does crossing state lines have to do with ANYTHING?

 

THere were no victims

 

The federal gov't isn't involved in this case.
Wi, AFAIK, doesn't not have a death penalty. So there's no chance of his right to life being taken away.

 

sure they're not they just withheld satellite footage from the defense out of no interest at all.

If it is determined that in Wisconsin you are not allowed to defend yourself when your life is being threatened then you don't have the right to life.

Basically it's stating a mob of people have the right to beat you to death for interfering with their criminal behavior. And you have no right to stop them you have to let them kill you.

 

I think the only chance they have is hoping for jury tampering. In fact I think that's what they're betting on.

 

I really prefer to call them American Marxists, but I believe they all got their roots in modern day American Liberalism.

 

No it doesn't have its roots in American liberalism. These types of people hijacked liberalism. It is by absolute definition anti-liberal.

When you call out liberals first of liberals are on our side when it comes to this stuff. They don't want to live in a socialist country they don't want to live under Marxist nonsense. This is more about the enemy than the Ally.

It's an old school term and it had meaning in the 90s I listened to Rush Limbaugh too. I would have considered Bill Clinton sort of liberal.

But these days the left calls liberals far right extremists.

There isn't division among the liberals in the conservatives there's disagreement. There's division between the ultra left and reality.

 

Do you have evidence the fed gov't shot the drone video?
Wi has a self defense law.

...
Kenosha Detective Ben Antaramian testified that at some point in their investigation, authorities learned someone had recorded drone video. The video had played on a Fox News segment.

Prosecutors said they received a low-resolution copy earlier in their investigation but weren't given a high-definition one until Friday, Day 5 of the trial.
...
Wisconsin's self-defense law allows someone to use deadly force only if "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." The jury must decide whether Rittenhouse believed he was in such peril and whether that belief was reasonable under the circumstances.
...
Drone video shown at Kyle Rittenhouse trial shows teen fatally shooting man at close range during Kenosha protests - CBS News