Kyle Rittenhouse

[Croesy Blue]

Of course they did not deserve to be shot dead, they made a foolish mistake of chasing down and punching/kicking armed individual, doesn't mean Kyle is therefore guilty of their murder does it?

It doesn’t mean he is completely innocent either though. You’re basing your whole opinion off that video without knowing what started everyone hitting him.

Seems you’ve made your mind up without wanting to see the full set of evidence. I seriously cannot believe you’re calling that guy a “dangerous criminal” based on that.

Wandering into a city win a gun looking for a fight then winding someone up into attacking you does not mean you should be able to shoot them without repercussion. That’s what sets the precedent. Get someone to attack and say you shot them in self defence because you feared for your safety. Dangerous, stupid and again something politicised that shouldn’t be.

[chris lee]

It doesn’t mean he is completely innocent either though. You’re basing your whole opinion off that video without knowing what started everyone hitting him.

Seems you’ve made your mind up without wanting to see the full set of evidence. I seriously cannot believe you’re calling that guy a “dangerous criminal” based on that.

Wandering into a city win a gun looking for a fight then winding someone up into attacking you does not mean you should be able to shoot them without repercussion. That’s what sets the precedent. Get someone to attack and say you shot them in self defence because you feared for your safety. Dangerous, stupid and again something politicised that shouldn’t be.

I am not sure why you keep emphasising 'dangerous criminal' I have not used those words in my posts, maybe you are quoting someone else?

The thing is that like it or not, he is allowed to wander into a city with a gun and open carry, because the law allows him too.

and in turn the jury was correct to accept his argument fo self defence because it clearly was.

I agree it is a bad precedent but you can not send the kid to prison when he acted within the law. You have to instead change the law

[jimmyscoular]

I am not sure why you keep emphasising 'dangerous criminal' I have not used those words in my posts, maybe you are quoting someone else?

The thing is that like it or not, he is allowed to wander into a city with a gun and open carry, because the law allows him too.

and in turn the jury was correct to accept his argument fo self defence because it clearly was.

I agree it is a bad precedent but you can not send the kid to prison when he acted within the law. You have to instead change the law

The verdict does indeed mean that he is completely innocent in the eyes of the law. Rittenhouse was presumed innocent from the moment charges were filed against him. The prosecution failed to overturn that presumption, therefore his innocence stands.

Of course, people are quite free to draw different conclusions in their private capacity.

[Heathblue]

The verdict does indeed mean that he is completely innocent in the eyes of the law. Rittenhouse was presumed innocent from the moment charges were filed against him. The prosecution failed to overturn that presumption, therefore his innocence stands.

Of course, people are quite free to draw different conclusions in their private capacity.

The judge and jurors will be looking over their shoulders for a long long time, one of the news teams was caught following the jurors bus leaving the court on the previous night, I'd be surprised if the jurors were not doxed at some point, the pressure on them to convict must have been immense, meanwhile Ghislaine Maxwell starts on the 29th, squeaky bum time for the rich and famous.