Current Events > Kyle Rittenhouse in trouble once more.

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Before he shot anyone he interacted with the police while the curfew was up. They should have sent him home right then.

Guys, stop feeding mario. He's been saying completely dumb shit for years at this point.

gmanthebest posted...

It's amazing how many people just straight up refuse to look at the facts of the case and just keep regurgitating propaganda that came out before the facts were established.

That's with everything nowadays. People are just too stubborn to see anything that contradicts what they believe, so they'll do all sort of gymnastics that don't hold up under the tinest bit of scrutiny. It's making everything stupider.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yes, the prosecution's witnesses testified this independent of anything he said. We also have eyewitnesses, pictures and videos of him walking around with a fire extinguisher and putting them out.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I didn't say arrest. I said send home. And did I say they shouldn't send anyone else home?

And it should be obvious to anyone who isn't out of their fucking mind that the police should send home minors who are walking around with guns during a curfew while riots could be breaking out.

I guess my lack of cognitive dissonance is really showing lmfao

InfinityMonster posted...

Guys, stop feeding mario. He's been saying completely dumb shit for years at this point.

That's with everything nowadays. People are just too stubborn to see anything that contradicts what they believe, so they'll do all sort of gymnastics that don't hold up under the tinest bit of scrutiny. It's making everything stupider.

Yes, the prosecution's witnesses testified this independent of anything he said. We also have eyewitnesses, pictures and videos of him walking around with a fire extinguisher and putting them out.

it's ok to be stupid and irresponsible to the point of getting people killed if you put a few fires out

Tenlaar posted...

They were wrong. They thought something that wasnt actually true is not a defense of their actions.

They were in a crowd where someone started firing a weapon. They were acting in self defence and in defence of others

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The only lives he endangered were those of the people who attacked him. That's literally what a weapon for self-defense is meant to do. It served its purpose perfectly.

He put himself in that position where he had to do that, Gobby. It's like if I went to GA(I live in FL) decided to show off my big bad rifle where there is civil unrest and not expect the repcussions of doing so. There is word for Kyle and it would definitely get me banned here.

vycebrand2 posted...

He put himself in that position where he had to do that

Pretty sure the guys who attacked him are the ones who put themselves in a position to be shot, though.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This is you demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Wouldn't say I'm proud of this, but back in my college days I want to "peaceful gatherings" that turned into riots (based on sports, both local team winning and losing) and cops will absolutely try to send individuals away/home if they get close but cops are always so outnumbered in those situations that they are mostly just trying to maintain a presence to keep order. "ThEy ShOuLd ArReSt EvErYoNe FoR cUrFeW oR nO oNe" is not based in reality in any sense. They will send people on their way if and when they can, and if the acquitted killer approached them, he should have been sent on his way. They wouldn't just be like "oh hey wait a minute! EVERYONE should leave! We're going about this all wrong!" That's nonsense. You are trolling and literally everything you've said in this topic so far (and everything you will say following this) is nonsensical and invalid.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Pretty sure the guys who attacked him are the ones who put themselves in a position to be shot, though.

Come on, Gobs. You know better than that. You're basically saying "Well he jumped into a puddle of molten lava but it was the lava's fault that his feet got burned." A person does not put themselves in the acquitted killer's position unless they specifically chose to go out of their way in the name of anticipation of opportunity to commit vigilante justice. It is that simple.

FigureOfSpeech posted...

Come on, Gobs. You know better than that.

He really doesn't.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Pretty sure the guys who attacked him are the ones who put themselves in a position to be shot, though.

/woosh. Let me explain something to you. As a gun owner like Kyle you have a responsibility to never have to use a gun to defend your self. He went there to show his big bad gun around. He had no need to be there. He didnt have property he needed to protect or his life threatened till after he made the choice to be there. See it's different then have a concealed weapon and being a "good guy" with a gun just randomly. He went there across state lines to start shit and that choice took lives. The charges brought against him didnt match what he did. Hence where he got a not guilty verdict.

FigureOfSpeech posted...

Come on, Gobs. You know better than that.

I can see how you'd think this if you've never read any of his posts before.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

They were in a crowd where someone started firing a weapon. They were acting in self defence and in defence of others

They were not acting in self defense because there was no threat to them. Again, their assumptions were wrong.

vycebrand2 posted...

/woosh. Let me explain something to you. As a gun owner like Kyle you have a responsibility to never have to use a gun to defend your self. He went there to show his big bad gun around. He had no need to be there. He didnt have property he needed to protect or his life threatened till after he made the choice to be there. See it's different then have a concealed weapon and being a "good guy" with a gun just randomly. He went there across state lines to start shit and that choice took lives. The charges brought against him didnt match what he did. Hence where he got a not guilty verdict.

I have a new appreciation for you, bud

Tenlaar posted...

They were not acting in self defense because there was no threat to them. Again, their assumptions were wrong.

An active shooter is a threat. Hindsight doesnt apply in the moment. Assumptions were wrong is hindsight and doesnt apply in the moment. They believed him to be an active shooter, because he was actively shooting.

vycebrand2 posted...

As a gun owner like Kyle you have a responsibility to never have to use a gun to defend your self.

What the fuck does this mean? Where is this law written, exactly?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

What the fuck does this mean? Where is this law written, exactly?

Everyone knows the law is morality

vycebrand2 posted...

He put himself in that position where he had to do that, Gobby. It's like if I went to GA(I live in FL) decided to show off my big bad rifle where there is civil unrest and not expect the repcussions of doing so. There is word for Kyle and it would definitely get me banned here.

The gun had nothing to do with him being attacked. People keep making up this headcanon about everything happening in reaction to his gun. It has nothing to do with it. They spent a lot of time on this in the trial. He pissed off an unhinged guy who was threatening people all night, by putting out the trash fires he had started.

All the fault is on Rosenbaum. He had just been in the hospital for a suicide attempt and then went straight to the protest after his discharge and started causing trouble. The doctor probably told him to go home, not downtown.

The equivalent would be if you went somewhere with a gun and tons of other people had guns there and you saw some shit on fire, tried putting it out and then some unhinged guy decided to jump you because he was the one who started the fire.

The curfew thing is also completely irrelevant since nobody was being sent home and they weren't checking ID. The cops were allowing everybody to be there.

Constantly pushing misinformation and irrelevant headcanon makes a lot of you look like huge hypocrites.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

"Insidious intentions" is completely unsupported. They spent a significant amount of time trying to find anything that would support it at the trial, and it all backfired on the prosecution because their own witnesses testified in favor of Rittenhouse. This was not a case of there being insufficient evidence. The evidence and actions directly contradicted it.

TopGoats posted...

Are you really this dense?

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Everyone knows the law is morality

Y'all are going to have to explain to me how a gun owner is "responsible to never have to use a gun to defend themself."

What does that mean? I mean seriously, what does it mean? What are you basing that statement on, who has ever told you this? Did you guys just make it up?

That's not a thing that exists as far as I'm aware.

Have to explain it to you? Are you incapable of critical thought? Justify why someone with a deadly weapon shouldnt be held to a higher standard than someone without one

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Have to explain it to you?

At least tell me where this idea comes from that it's somehow the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure that they never get attacked at random in public.

vycebrand2 posted...

As a gun owner like Kyle you have a responsibility to never have to use a gun to defend your self

What? So if someone busts in my crib and I shoot them, I've failed my responsibility as a gun owner? Do you live in the United States?

youenjoymyself1 posted...

What? So if someone busts in my crib and I shoot them, I've failed my responsibility as a gun owner? Do you live in the United States?

if someone busts into your crib, youre already avoiding conflict by not patrolling in public with a loaded assault weapon

Gobstoppers12 posted...

At least tell me where this idea comes from that it's somehow the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure that they never get attacked at random in public.

It wasnt at random and you know it

Kloe_Rinz posted...

It wasnt at random and you know it

.......so what was the reason?

Kloe_Rinz posted...

if someone busts into your crib, youre already avoiding conflict by not patrolling in public with a loaded assault weapon

That's not what he said. He said it was your responsibility as a gun owner to never use one to defend yourself.

And there's no law saying you cannot defend yourself if you put yourself in a bad situation. Only if you're in the commission of a felony, like you're robbing someone, do you give up your right to self defense.

It is like you guys didn't pay attention to the trial at all but you wanna argue and project your own morals and act like that is the law of the land.

The law doesn't care about your fee fees, and the thing is that you think the guy who pulled out a gun and chased down Rittenhouse has more rights to be there than Rittenhouse himself because of what political sports team he played on, period. I mean what about his "responsibility as a gun owner to never use it for defense" lol.

"Trouble" like the last time, when people who didn't know shit about anything pretended to know everything? When this doesn't pan out, will it be another terrifying precedent set in a system designed to allow this, or will it be another corrupt white supremacist judge? Sure as shit won't be that you fuckers don't know what you're talking, and just pull whatever sounds good out of your ass. No way it'll be that.

shnangyboos posted...

another corrupt white supremacist judge?

lol

youenjoymyself1 posted...

That's not what he said. He said it was your responsibility as a gun owner to never use one to defend yourself.

And there's no law saying you cannot defend yourself if you put yourself in a bad situation. Only if you're in the commission of a felony, like you're robbing someone, do you give up your right to self defense.

It is like you guys didn't pay attention to the trial at all but you wanna argue and project your own morals and act like that is the law of the land.

The law doesn't care about your fee fees, and the thing is that you think the guy who pulled out a gun and chased down Rittenhouse has more rights to be there than Rittenhouse himself because of what political sports team he played on, period. I mean what about his "responsibility as a gun owner to never use it for defense" lol.

As we know the law is morality and nobody enforcing the law has ever been incorrect

Kloe_Rinz posted...

An active shooter is a threat. Hindsight doesnt apply in the moment. Assumptions were wrong is hindsight and doesnt apply in the moment. They believed him to be an active shooter, because he was actively shooting.

He was not an active shooter nor was he actively shooting. You keep saying these things that they thought as if they are true but they are not. The people were not wrong in hindsight, they were just wrong.

Tenlaar posted...

He was not an active shooter

He was actively shooting his gun

Kloe_Rinz posted...

He was actively shooting his gun

At someone who tried to kill him. And like I said earlier, if he went just to mow people down, why did he retreat instead of taking the opportunity to stand his ground?

gmanthebest posted...

At someone who tried to kill him

hindsight. the other people he killed didnt know that. stop making arguments from hindsight when they can't apply in the moment

gmanthebest posted...

At someone who tried to kill him. And like I said earlier, if he went just to mow people down, why did he retreat instead of taking the opportunity to stand his ground?

Because just like every gun nut he is in actuality a huge coward and acting out his hero fantasies turned out to not be as fun as he thought.

It's wild to me how much Kyle stans just completely ignore his shit reasons for being there.

Tenlaar posted...

He was not an active shooter nor was he actively shooting. You keep saying these things that they thought as if they are true but they are not. The people were not wrong in hindsight, they were just wrong.

He's a murderer.

Unknown781 posted...

He's a murderer.

Factually incorrect.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

He was actively shooting his gun

Why are you intentionally using these terms that do not apply to this situation? Somebody shooting a person in self defense is not what active shooter means and you know this. It is very dishonest.

Tenlaar posted...

Factually incorrect.

Nothing incorrect about it.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/1/3/AADtgDAAEDq9.jpg

Tenlaar posted...

Factually incorrect.

Why are you intentionally using these terms that do not apply to this situation? Somebody shooting a person in self defense is not what active shooter means and you know this. It is very dishonest.

@tenlaar , then you get mad when people point out that you always defend the most horrible causes out there. Stop.

The_shibe posted...

@tenlaar , then you get mad when people point out that you always defend the most horrible causes out there. Stop.

I have a problem with people lying about my beliefs, saying that I defend things I do not. That is quite different. I have no problem with acknowledging that Rittenhouses case clearly falls under self defense.

Gage already admitted to only getting shot after pointing his gun at Kyle. This lawsuit is a waste of both of their time and money.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I'm coming in (very) late but was going to ask you to clarify this. Do you mean the police *weren't* enforcing the curfew and therefore enforcing it just on Kyle would not be equal? Or that the police *were* enforcing it equally and targeting Kyle would be unequal?

https://twitter.com/ronfilipkowski/status/1628901239130845186

vycebrand2 posted...

you have a responsibility to never have to use a gun to defend your self

I wish more people had this mentality.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

What the fuck does this mean? Where is this law written, exactly?

He never said it was a law. He is just talking about common sense responsibility that gun owners should have.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Y'all are going to have to explain to me how a gun owner is "responsible to never have to use a gun to defend themself."

Not what he said.

He is saying that if you carry a gun you should avoid do everything you can do avoid situations where you might have to deploy it.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

At least tell me where this idea comes from that it's somehow the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure that they never get attacked at random in public.

curfew and riot zone =/= random public setting

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Thats a face that just begs for a fist

Isnt this the idiot who openly said on the stand that he wasnt shot until after he pointed a gun at the guy?

lol good luck with that