Rittenhouse/ self defense

[IndigoErth]

Should Gaige Grosskreutz, the guy who was wounded but lived, have shot Rittenhouse right back in his own rightful self defense? After all, he didn't pull the trigger of his own gun, even after Rittenhouse had shot him, he held back. Would he likewise have been in the right and innocent of any charges if he returned fire on Rittenhouse, possibly taking him down, after being shot himself and after others having been shot?

[joe-eyeball]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Should Gaige Grosskreutz, the guy who was wounded but lived, have shot Rittenhouse right back in his own rightful self defense? After all, he didn't pull the trigger of his own gun, even after Rittenhouse had shot him, he held back. Would he likewise have been in the right and innocent of any charges if he returned fire on Rittenhouse, possibly taking him down, after being shot himself and after others having been shot?

The burden would have been on the prosecution to show that he too had a right to defend himself legally. If an investigation would have concluded that Gaige was the initial aggressor then NO he could not claim justifiable self defense. This is because you can’t legally defend yourself if you absolutely created the situation of imminent danger in the first place. Also Gaige probably couldn’t shoot back if he wanted because his arm was too injured to do so.

In Ohio you can as a legal ccw holder come to the defense of a stranger but you better be damn sure you are defending against the initial aggressor and not just flippantly picking a side and firing without having certain details.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I personally would not have gone out, as he did.

However, "Why was he even there?" wasn't the point of the trial. The point was, "Under state law, did he have the right to shoot to defend himself against people who came after him?" State law says "Yes he did." But I agree, if he stayed home then nothing happens. I don't think he really should have been there, but that wasn't what the trial was about.

...

I don't want to come off as confrontational on this but it was you that first brought up the example of unarmed black people that people have drawn comparisons to should have had more "common sense". You also brought up allegations on their characters as well worn speculation on their motivations for what they were doing when they were killed. I tend to think if that gets brought up as some kind of...not necessarily defense but perhaps justification for their killings then I think it's fair game for us on the other side of this to be able to use the same logic with Kyle Rittenhouse.

While the jostling to 'control the narrative' in these kinds of situations is a natural reaction to the very polarised political climate we're living in right now I do think it does some have some baring on the legalities of a cases particularly when the involve juries and grey areas such the nature of self defense and laws against provoking violence. Like if the video of him beating up a young girl or his bragging about wanting to shoot people days before this incident had been out there more maybe a jury would have been more incline to see him for the scumbag he is and maybe he bares some legal responsibility for what happened after all.

Originally Posted by Bahamut810

He didn't travel across state lines with an AR-15. It was legally purchased and held by a friend of his living in Kenosha. He travelled to a town 15 minutes from his permanent address that he lived in part time with his Father, visited his father side of the family who primarily lived there and he worked there. So he had a vested interest in the town. To put it in perspective, he was time was closer then the guy who lost his bicept (30 minute drive) and the guy who initially assulted him (4 mile walk).

To be honest this sounds even more dubious. It sounds like he deliberately bought an AR-15 specifically to go to these riots literally days after he brags he wants to shoot people.

The pictures you are talking about came *after* everything went down at a time when Rittenhouse was being lambasted in the media and loved by people outside the media. It seems pretty obvious that a young person was responding to positive attention when his life is extremely chaotic.

I'm aware of that but Rittenhouse is quite politically engaged even at 17 years old and staunchly on the right. He and family would surely have known who these people were and what they stood for. There were tons of Conservatives of all stripes that were offering him support why did he chose to go party with actual white supremecists. Hell, why even do that with anyone at all? Whether he thinks what he did was legal or not he still killed two people. Whooping it up is probably not the best look.

It seems like you have a pre-concieved notion that you *want* him to be a sociopathic monster.

I don't know if he's a sociopath. I do know that he is a thug that beats up woman and thought he could play act as some militia guy until something genuinely happened and decided he couldn't hack it.

Agreed, but there is a difference between acceptable and stupid risks.

I don't think it's a stupid risk to use restraint when dealing with a 12 year old boy playing with what you've been told is toy and not shoot him in the dead. Likewise I don't think it's a stupid risk to use restraint when dealing with a 7 year old old and you're not sure you've raided the right apartment and not shoot her in the head. Or if a man you've randomly pulled over informs you he's got a license for a gun and reaches to show to use use restraint and not just assume he must be reaching for the gun and instantly shoot him at point blank range. Funny how cops have a 'no risk' attitude when he comes to black people but are fine using restraint to take white mass shooters like Dylan Roof alive.

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

The most I see is the usual leftist ****. Twitter going nuts, anyone who disagrees is getting blocked, friendships are being broken on FB over whoever says Kyle did nothing wrong. All that nonsense.

Whether Kyle Rittenhouse did something illegal is one argument but he killed two people. He's definitely done things wrong...like a lot of things way, way wrong.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Should Gaige Grosskreutz, the guy who was wounded but lived, have shot Rittenhouse right back in his own rightful self defense? After all, he didn't pull the trigger of his own gun, even after Rittenhouse had shot him, he held back. Would he likewise have been in the right and innocent of any charges if he returned fire on Rittenhouse, possibly taking him down, after being shot himself and after others having been shot?

He started it though. You're pretty much asking if a guy breaks in, and you start shooting to defend yourself, your family and your property... if the crook also has the right to shoot you right back because he's defending himself.

Your right to defend yourself goes out the window once you start attacking someone.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Whether Kyle Rittenhouse did something illegal is one argument but he killed two people. He's definitely done things wrong...like a lot of things way, way wrong.

Two stupid people that literally chose to run towards a gun rather than away from it. Anyone stupid enough to come at someone with a skateboard, or to be yelling threats and insults while attacking someone got what they got.

Wether they deserved it or not, it doesn't change the fact that what they did was incredibly stupid. The third guy is just extremely lucky he didn't die too cause he sure was looking for more of the same.

[joe-eyeball]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Your right to defend yourself goes out the window once you start attacking someone.

Not to mention that that guy also had NO legal right to possess a concealed firearm under those circumstances! And in open court he flat out admitted that Rittenhouse only fired upon him when he advanced on him and pointed his illegally carried Glock at Kyle.

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Should Gaige Grosskreutz, the guy who was wounded but lived, have shot Rittenhouse right back in his own rightful self defense? After all, he didn't pull the trigger of his own gun, even after Rittenhouse had shot him, he held back. Would he likewise have been in the right and innocent of any charges if he returned fire on Rittenhouse, possibly taking him down, after being shot himself and after others having been shot?

Its not self defense when you chase someone down trying to murder them... and Gaige needs to be charged with attempted murder, illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon & probably a few other things.

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by Galactus

I don't want to come off as confrontational on this but it was you that first brought up the example of unarmed black people that people have drawn comparisons to should have had more "common sense". You also brought up allegations on their characters as well worn speculation on their motivations for what they were doing when they were killed. I tend to think if that gets brought up as some kind of...not necessarily defense but perhaps justification for their killings then I think it's fair game for us on the other side of this to be able to use the same logic with Kyle Rittenhouse.

While the jostling to 'control the narrative' in these kinds of situations is a natural reaction to the very polarised political climate we're living in right now I do think it does some have some baring on the legalities of a cases particularly when the involve juries and grey areas such the nature of self defense and laws against provoking violence. Like if the video of him beating up a young girl or his bragging about wanting to shoot people days before this incident had been out there more maybe a jury would have been more incline to see him for the scumbag he is and maybe he bares some legal responsibility for what happened after all.



To be honest this sounds even more dubious. It sounds like he deliberately bought an AR-15 specifically to go to these riots literally days after he brags he wants to shoot people.



I'm aware of that but Rittenhouse is quite politically engaged even at 17 years old and staunchly on the right. He and family would surely have known who these people were and what they stood for. There were tons of Conservatives of all stripes that were offering him support why did he chose to go party with actual white supremecists. Hell, why even do that with anyone at all? Whether he thinks what he did was legal or not he still killed two people. Whooping it up is probably not the best look.



I don't know if he's a sociopath. I do know that he is a thug that beats up woman and thought he could play act as some militia guy until something genuinely happened and decided he couldn't hack it.



I don't think it's a stupid risk to use restraint when dealing with a 12 year old boy playing with what you've been told is toy and not shoot him in the dead. Likewise I don't think it's a stupid risk to use restraint when dealing with a 7 year old old and you're not sure you've raided the right apartment and not shoot her in the head. Or if a man you've randomly pulled over informs you he's got a license for a gun and reaches to show to use use restraint and not just assume he must be reaching for the gun and instantly shoot him at point blank range. Funny how cops have a 'no risk' attitude when he comes to black people but are fine using restraint to take white mass shooters like Dylan Roof alive.




Whether Kyle Rittenhouse did something illegal is one argument but he killed two people. He's definitely done things wrong...like a lot of things way, way wrong.

Why do you support pedophiles & convicted felons? Are you a commie fvcking terrorist? You don't even know what you're talking about.

[oldmanwinters]

Whew, y'all took this one into a dark place real quick.

The only question now is whether this thread will get locked with a combination or key-based unit.

[Bahamut810]

Should Gaige Grosskreutz, the guy who was wounded but lived, have shot Rittenhouse right back in his own rightful self defense? After all, he didn't pull the trigger of his own gun, even after Rittenhouse had shot him, he held back.

Two issues with this. First, He couldnt 'fire back' because it was impossible. Second, it was impossible due to his arm being half gone *after he pointed the gun at Rittenhouses head*. He admitted this in court. You cant claim self defense if you have a gun to a guys head after chasing him down as part of a mob.

You also brought up allegations on their characters as well worn speculation on their motivations for what they were doing when they were killed.

This does not matter in the context of the case. What matters is what happened. Its very straight forward. Rosenbaum was violent the entire night. Threatened people. "stepped" to people demanding a conflict. Threatened to murder people. He ambushed Rittenhouse, tried to take his gun and was shot. Other people heard about this and the mob did what the mob does as he was running towards the police. He was not an active shooter...they decided they wanted mob justice so they attacked a fleeing man and tried to take his gun. Everyone who didn't assault him was safe, and even a guy who did assault him and surrendered didn't have anything happen to him. We have direct video evidence that shows this.

Like if the video of him beating up a young girl or his bragging about wanting to shoot people

Correction: The video where he stood up to help his sister, and him **** talking like *literally everyone on twitter who wished they shot him or they would punch a nazi*. Don't act like wishing ill will is a "right-wing exclusive".

To be honest this sounds even more dubious. It sounds like he deliberately bought an AR-15 specifically to go to these riots literally days after he brags he wants to shoot people.

Correction: He didn't purchase the gun. His friend purchased the gun under an agreement that when he could legally own it it would be given to him. That is a legal thing. He wanted the gun because he wanted the gun. Provide evidence that he wanted it specifically to shoot people. While he has one video where he **** talks, LIKE EVERYONE ON TWITTER, he has a history of participating in programs that train him to help people.

I'm aware of that but Rittenhouse is quite politically engaged even at 17 years old and staunchly on the right. He and family would surely have known who these people were and what they stood for. There were tons of Conservatives of all stripes that were offering him support why did he chose to go party with actual white supremecists. Hell, why even do that with anyone at all? Whether he thinks what he did was legal or not he still killed two people. Whooping it up is probably not the best look.

You answered your own question. He went there because he was being supported while large swaths of the internet and the media were dog piling on him calling him a monster. Lets be honest, he could have done worst then hanging out with the worst "white supremacists"...a group led by a black cuban who are pretty much meme edgi bois. Per the defence he is in therapy for PTSD from the event, so support helps. Victim blaming wouldn't help with that.

I do know that he is a thug that beats up woman and thought he could play act as some militia guy until something genuinely happened and decided he couldn't hack it.

Correction: Kid who tried to help his sister who tried to be a medic and survived a child molester then a mob trying to kill him.

I don't think it's a stupid risk to use restraint when dealing with a 12 year old boy playing with what you've been told is toy and not shoot him in the dead. Likewise I don't think it's a stupid risk to use restraint when dealing with a 7 year old old and you're not sure you've raided the right apartment and not shoot her in the head. Or if a man you've randomly pulled over informs you he's got a license for a gun and reaches to show to use use restraint and not just assume he must be reaching for the gun and instantly shoot him at point blank range. Funny how cops have a 'no risk' attitude when he comes to black people but are fine using restraint to take white mass shooters like Dylan Roof alive.

So what? This is a moot point. This has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse situation or the fact people tried to kill him. The police were not involved in the incident. I am not sure every scenario you are talking about...but I bet they are also different police departments. Stop bringing up completely different situations to justify thinking its ok to kill people you don't agree with. I am not sure if you noticed, but that's what you are doing is blaming a victim of assault and attempted murder for defending himself.

[Leo656]

Galactus: If it makes you feel any better I wouldn't be incredibly upset if Rittenhouse had gotten shot and killed, either. I think ultimately every one of these people we're talking about should've been home reading a goddamn book.

I honestly don't know a ton about Rittenhouse as a person or his history before "the incident" so I can't honestly speak to that. I did however happen in the past to have read a lot about the other guys and the things I bring up about them aren't so much suppositions about their character, but simple facts of being. Floyd WAS high on drugs, Trayvon WAS previously busted with tools for breaking into cars (as well as stolen property most likely procured during same), and so on. If I knew more about the Rittenhouse guy I'd have more to say about him. But I've been busy. Those other things happened during periods of time where I had a lot more free time to go poking around about such things, and so I have a little bit more to say about Those Guys than This Guy insofar as what I think of their character.

Please bear this in mind as well, for whatever it's worth: I feel more free to make suppositions and assumptions about guys like Floyd and Martin because I've known a lot of people like them, even if not those specific people personally. I never knew anyone who got themselves into an incident like Rittenhouse did. I can't even begin to assume what was in his head in that case. But I've known plenty of George Floyds and Trayvon Martins, it's just that most of them are still alive. Maybe that's "profiling", maybe it's just a person applying their life experience when forming a judgment on a situation. That's how I prefer to look at it, since it's a thing we all do whether we admit to doing it or not.

So for whatever it may be worth, where I come from if a person gets busted with a tool for breaking into cars, and within the same week just happens to go out walking in the rain because "they just wanted some Skittles"... one automatically assumes sinister intent, yes. Maybe that isn't fair, but that's how life typically works for many people. We make judgments based on our own life's experiences.

I never knew anybody who shot a few people at a riot, though, so if I ever do I'll be sure and project my assumptions onto this situation retroactively. I simply don't feel entirely qualified to do so at this point. I do feel qualified to jump to certain conclusions in those other cases though. Whether that makes me a bad person or not, well... I can only call it like I see it.

My issues with Floyd and Martin are ultimately that many people paint them as innocent victims or martyrs, while the actual facts simply do not bear that out. Again, it doesn't mean they "deserved" to die but it does support the idea that the mainstream narrative about who they were is somewhat false. They WERE engaged in criminal behavior and they DID escalate the circumstances of the situations they were in to a degree where it caused them to die. So I have always felt compelled to point out - fairly or unfairly - that we should really remember the WHOLE story about them, not just the fact they died questionably. They may have been "victims" but they were not exactly "innocent". And I do feel like it's important that people keep that in mind.

On the flipside, I don't see too many people calling Rittenhouse a hero, so I feel less compelled to comment on the hypocrisy of trying to paint him as such since I haven't really seen it happen. He did kill a scumbag but he did so by accident, so even then it's more like a "happy accident" than anything, it's not like he meant for that. I know SOME people are calling him a hero but I think that's rather silly, too.

Not to come off as confrontational towards YOU, or anything, I'm simply explaining.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by mrmaczaps

Its not self defense when you chase someone down trying to murder them... and Gaige needs to be charged with attempted murder, illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon & probably a few other things.

From what I have heard, no, he didn't chase him down to try to murder him, utter hogwash. From what I've seen supposedly Gaige Grosskreutz either was or had been a paramedic or some kind of medical training and was there to try to help that night, responding when he heard gun shots and heading toward it as any person trained like a first responder might do. So what was HE really supposed to think when he shows up and some kid has already shot people? He's somehow supposed to be psychic and know this kid is a "good guy with a gun"? Because at the moment he probably looked the total opposite. Though Gaige Grosskreutz supposedly had his own gun in hand, he stated and there was supposedly video evidence that he initially had his hands up, not pointed at Riddenhouse, when first approaching him. He wasn't looking to hurt this kid. He could have very well grabbed his own gun with his other hand and fired at him after he himself was shot, but he didn't.

Maybe the two other guys were kind of scummy (though in things unrelated to this so Rittenhouse isn't exactly any rightful executioner of them) and the first sounds to have been acting rather aggressive in general that night even before that incident so he himself was pretty much looking for trouble, too, but Grosskreutz... No, I don't buy any narrative that his own intentions were bad or that he was after him or that his own right to self defense against Rittenhouse wouldn't or shouldn't have been defended had he shot back. I heard stated that he wasn't even called in to testify, he himself chose to. To demonize this guy who does not sound like he had bad intentions and NOT defend one "good guy with a gun" out of bias and preference to make another one a "hero" for killing people is pretty messed up.

I don't think Rittenhouse was some evil kid wanting to hurt people, but I think he was an extremely stupid one who probably wanted to feel like a big man and thought he saw an opportunity to go pretend to be when his ass should have just stayed out of that and let that community handle its own problem.

[Vegita-San]

mark ruffalo is officially insane. at least twitter is turning against him.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Galactus

I don't want to come off as confrontational on this but it was you that first brought up the example of unarmed black people that people have drawn comparisons to should have had more "common sense".

If you look intently at majority of those killings of those "innocent Black men" you will find out that most acted like idiots, when confronted with cops. Or they were outright were criminals and actively resisted officers.

Originally Posted by Galactus

While the jostling to 'control the narrative' in these kinds of situations is a natural reaction to the very polarised political climate we're living in right now I do think it does some have some baring on the legalities of a cases particularly when the involve juries and grey areas such the nature of self defense and laws against provoking violence. Like if the video of him beating up a young girl or his bragging about wanting to shoot people days before this incident had been out there more maybe a jury would have been more incline to see him for the scumbag he is and maybe he bares some legal responsibility for what happened after all.

This logic as is good as saying that "George "Saint Fentanyl" Floyd had deserved to die, because, he was taking drugs" at some point in his life.

We are not talking about what person did or did not at some in their life. We are talking about moment that had happened then and there.

Originally Posted by Galactus

I'm aware of that but Rittenhouse is quite politically engaged even at 17 years old and staunchly on the right. He and family would surely have known who these people were and what they stood for. There were tons of Conservatives of all stripes that were offering him support why did he chose to go party with actual white supremecists. Hell, why even do that with anyone at all? Whether he thinks what he did was legal or not he still killed two people. Whooping it up is probably not the best look.

You are arguing in bad faith and mixing two unconnected narratives, because, you don't have any arguments to back your worldview up.

Kyle and his family being conservatives has nothing to do with him killing people.

By this logic, I can argue that presence of insane pedophile at the BLM rally, means that being pedophile is inherent part of left political beliefs.

Celebrating Kyle as a hero...well, he killed two thugs in self-defense, which was justified, according to the law. Said thugs would have killed him and brought about who know much property damage, robbing people from their livelihoods (which, I guess, doesn't count, as long as it is not YOUR property their destroy).

Also, considering that a lot of people see BLM as domestic terrorists who destroy everything in their way, like swarm of locusts, it makes sense why people rally to defend Kyle and see him as someone who was not afraid to oppose BLM terror.

Of course, if you believe, that defending rights of Blacks, give rioters right to rob and burn and kill everyone who is unfortunate to end up in their way...for some reason, you might see things the other way. Which is rather hilarious way, when you think about it for two seconds and stop watching CNN.

Originally Posted by Galactus

I don't know if he's a sociopath. I do know that he is a thug that beats up woman and thought he could play act as some militia guy until something genuinely happened and decided he couldn't hack it.

Killing two people in self-defense, doesn't count as "hack it"? Should he killed the whole crowd for you to start think that he is serious business?

Also, bringing Kyle's actions from the past makes as much sense as bringing past of those "innocent killed Black people" or "Kyle's innocent victims".

Originally Posted by Galactus

Funny how cops have a 'no risk' attitude when he comes to black people but are fine using restraint to take white mass shooters like Dylan Roof alive.

Hm, could it be, because, Blacks has certain history of acting like fools around cops?

Originally Posted by Galactus

Whether Kyle Rittenhouse did something illegal is one argument but he killed two people. He's definitely done things wrong...like a lot of things way, way wrong.

Him saving his life is wrong? What kind of drugs are you taking, kid?

Also, if you was facing choice to kill or be killed, what you'd prefer?
And how'd react, if people then told you, that your actions "were a mistake and you should have let yourself be killed, because, it is not a good look on their ideology"?


I don't expect any answers from you, because, like other lefties, when confronted with real questions you run away, because, you are a coward, who knows he can't answer them without being a massive hypocrite and twisting facts so much that it would become obvious you are using double standards, something, lefties claim only people on the Right are doing.

[Bahamut810]

I honestly don't know a ton about Rittenhouse as a person or his history before "the incident" so I can't honestly speak to that.

Per his testimony (and if I remember right)...He was a Jr Firefighter, a Jr Police officer, he was a life guard with basic medical training, he had been volunteering to clean up graffiti in his community and he had volunteered to put out fires to try to save as much of a POC owned business as possible.

From what I have heard, no, he didn't chase him down to try to murder him, utter hogwash. From what I've seen supposedly Gaige Grosskreutz either was or had been a paramedic or some kind of medical training and was there to try to help that night, responding when he heard gun shots and heading toward it as any person trained like a first responder might do. So what was HE really supposed to think when he shows up and some kid has already shot people? He's somehow supposed to be psychic and know this kid is a "good guy with a gun"? Because at the moment he probably looked the total opposite. Though Gaige Grosskreutz supposedly had his own gun in hand, he stated and there was supposedly video evidence that he initially had his hands up, not pointed at Riddenhouse, when first approaching him. He wasn't looking to hurt this kid. He could have very well grabbed his own gun with his other hand and fired at him after he himself was shot, but he didn't.

He was there that night as a paramedic. As a note that does not apply to the night, he has a long line of domestic abuse charges on him. He was in illegal possession of a concealed gun that he didn't have the paperwork to conceal. Per the video footage, he started on his way to the shooting and head the mob accusing Rittenhouse of shooting someone, he took video footage of him chasing Rittenhouse and asking him a few questions before breaking off to check on who may have been shot. He changes his mind, takes out his gun and starts going back after Rittenhouse. When Rittenhouse is knocked over and the second guy is shot he pretends to surrender...then changes his mind and *AS HE ADMITS* points the gun directly at Rittenhouses head when his bicep is removed. He then ran away yelling for a medic and physically could not release the gun because his arm was messed up. All of this happened as Rittenhouse was running towards police that you can see in the background of some of the shots. He heard a mob make accusations and was going to kill a person defending themselves because they didn't submit to mob justice. Even if he thought he was doing right...but he was not.

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

From what I have heard, no, he didn't chase him down to try to murder him, utter hogwash. From what I've seen supposedly Gaige Grosskreutz either was or had been a paramedic or some kind of medical training and was there to try to help that night, responding when he heard gun shots and heading toward it as any person trained like a first responder might do. So what was HE really supposed to think when he shows up and some kid has already shot people? He's somehow supposed to be psychic and know this kid is a "good guy with a gun"? Because at the moment he probably looked the total opposite. Though Gaige Grosskreutz supposedly had his own gun in hand, he stated and there was supposedly video evidence that he initially had his hands up, not pointed at Riddenhouse, when first approaching him. He wasn't looking to hurt this kid. He could have very well grabbed his own gun with his other hand and fired at him after he himself was shot, but he didn't.

Maybe the two other guys were kind of scummy (though in things unrelated to this so Rittenhouse isn't exactly any rightful executioner of them) and the first sounds to have been acting rather aggressive in general that night even before that incident so he himself was pretty much looking for trouble, too, but Grosskreutz... No, I don't buy any narrative that his own intentions were bad or that he was after him or that his own right to self defense against Rittenhouse wouldn't or shouldn't have been defended had he shot back. I heard stated that he wasn't even called in to testify, he himself chose to. To demonize this guy who does not sound like he had bad intentions and NOT defend one "good guy with a gun" out of bias and preference to make another one a "hero" for killing people is pretty messed up.

I don't think Rittenhouse was some evil kid wanting to hurt people, but I think he was an extremely stupid one who probably wanted to feel like a big man and thought he saw an opportunity to go pretend to be when his ass should have just stayed out of that and let that community handle its own problem.

Gaige was shouting kill him... get him... kill him. Over and over. He literally was the bangwagon guy to get the others to chase Kyle down. So yeah, he did in fact chase Kyle down with intent to harm/kill him. And again, the illegally concealed firearm he had.... Gaige had not been any kind of medic for years, likely due to his criminal record. No more "official" than Kyle himself. Video shows Gaige approach in a violent manor but put his hands up at first because Kyle had his rifle out & then soon as Kyle drops the rifle back down, he grabs his gun & then Kyle pops his arm making it impossible for Gaige to shoot at that point. May want to rewatch the evidence because its blatantly obvious Gaige meant Kyle harm &/or imminent death.... not to mention his deleted fb post stating his wished he hadn't hesitated & he had "unloaded the full clip" into him... siding with known convicted felons is not a great look....

Kenosha IS Kyle's community. He works there, his dad & family lives there and his friends all live there. Facts matter. Too bad the msm just peddles in bullsh!t & lies to rally support for criminals.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by mrmaczaps

Gaige was shouting kill him... get him... kill him. Over and over. He literally was the bangwagon guy to get the others to chase Kyle down. So yeah, he did in fact chase Kyle down with intent to harm/kill him. And again, the illegally concealed firearm he had.... Gaige had not been any kind of medic for years, likely due to his criminal record. No more "official" than Kyle himself. Video shows Gaige approach in a violent manor but put his hands up at first because Kyle had his rifle out & then soon as Kyle drops the rifle back down, he grabs his gun & then Kyle pops his arm making it impossible for Gaige to shoot at that point. May want to rewatch the evidence because its blatantly obvious Gaige meant Kyle harm &/or imminent death.... not to mention his deleted fb post stating his wished he hadn't hesitated & he had "unloaded the full clip" into him... siding with known convicted felons is not a great look....

Kenosha IS Kyle's community. He works there, his dad & family lives there and his friends all live there. Facts matter. Too bad the msm just peddles in bullsh!t & lies to rally support for criminals.

Why are you trying to clear up her "understanding"?

She's clearly more informed than an educated court judge and an entire panel of peers who heard the case details and acquitted that kid.

She must be more informed - I mean even in the face of video evidence she's computed another explanation for this injustice of the court system.

This is all play pretend "conversation". There is NO. Reasonable. Person. who would say this kid shouldn't have been acquitted.

[ProphetofGanja]

This is all just scripted distraction

The real story is the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell and everyone that will be implicated as a result

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja

This is all just scripted distraction

The real story is the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell and everyone that will be implicated as a result

I don't buy the scripted distraction part. Basically at all.

But that aside, yeah man, I do buy that the Ghislaine thing has vanished from the news cycle and public consciousness and that is one of the most politically relevant things is going on right now.

It's unreal that it's vanished from the board. It should be being discussed daily with updates and baited breath.

[Mayhem]

Originally Posted by mrmaczaps

Why do you support pedophiles & convicted felons? Are you a commie fvcking terrorist? You don't even know what you're talking about.

I don't see how the background of the people in question should massively matter here, but of course it does in swinging opinion in the case. Someone I know went to jail here for 3 months for failing to pay child custody payments in a massive dispute with his ex (basically she was raping it from him while also living with a new guy she left him for who was earning three times as much as he was), you saying because he was convicted, he's more deserving to die? That's how it comes across.

Completely agree about the Maxwell trial. Sod this, that one needs the dedicated coverage.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...3nh0use_trial/