Technically, could Kyle walk out of the court room, with his weapon, and shoot rioters again, in the forthcoming protests?

Nothing in this insane as fuck country surprises me any more. They would probably give the dirt bag a damn medal, then ask, Why are these peeps rioting? Whatever did we do? If brains were dynamite, a lot of people in this nation couldn’t blow their own nose. I need another walk in the boondocks. I am pissed.

This is a victory for Americans who want to kill Americans who destroy property during protests. Maybe those property destroying protesters should bring guns too, protect themselves from dumb pathetic killers like Rittenhouse.

If he has a weapon and those rioters come at him with guns in an attempt to shoot him, then Yes.

Justice system did something right for once.

Can’t come at people with guns. I don’t give a fuck who should have been there and who shouldn’t have been there, you have a gun and come at someone with a gun, bye bye fucker.

@mazingerz88 And then when they threaten somebody with said gun, they themselves can run the risk of getting shot. It’s a fun world we live in. Can’t point guns without consequences!!!

@SergeantQueen “Can’t point guns without consequences!!!”

Unless your Kyle Rittenhouse, pointing weapons at people…

Sadly, I think it’s going to take groups of black people armed with assault riles wandering white neighborhoods to finally bring sanity to our gun laws.

@SergeantQueen Hmm, well only one of the people who came at him had a gun and he was not killed. The other two, who were killed, did not have guns.

^^ “you’re” not “your” ^^

I think he’s fine as long as he keeps the numbers down. Killing two or three is OK but more might make it a terrorist incident.

He’ll have his American Taliban buddies with him and they’ll all walk free.

I agree with @gorillapaws. It will take groups of black men walking our streets with guns before anything is ever done.

The US is dogshit.

Obviously. But with everyone knowing him and his history, somebody else will blow him away immediately, not taking any chances.

Americans who want to break windows during protests should bring guns just in case Rittenhouse shows up again. Prevent themselves from being murdered by an idiot.

I guess it would depend on the circumstances. If he were given his gun back prior to him walking out of the courtroom and the idiot protesters outside began trying to beat him and kill him and he shot them, yes, he could walk again.

@mazingerz88 Ask Grosskreutz…he did bring a gun and it was carried illegally.

Hey, I have a suggestion…why don’t we actually hold people that want to beat and kill others, burn buildings, break windows and generally destroy towns and society accountable for their actions? Why are they being canonized for being out of control thugs?

@gorillapaws What would you do if some pointed a gun at you, and you also had a gun?

@seawulf575 Had there been an idiot protester who shot and killed anyone yet? I think it’s just your idiot piece of turd protester-hating Rittenhouse who finally got what he wanted. Murder people for breaking windows.

@SergeantQueen “What would you do if some pointed a gun at you, and you also had a gun?”

Rosenbaum was unarmed. Rittenhouse dropped his fire extinguisher pointed his assault rifle at unarmed people.

I wouldn’t be carrying a gun. I don’t own one and only ever shoot them at targets with friends. But IF I did have a gun, and someone was pointing one at me, I would run for cover, because engaging in a shootout on a public street with innocent people around is fucking madness.

I don’t know why they even tried this ass clown. Just have some nut with a gun walk in and play judge, jury, and executioner. Just like he did. Save the state the cost of a trial.

@seawulf575 _”...why don’t we actually hold people that want to beat and kill others…accountable for their actions?”

Great question.

“Brah, I wish I had my fucking AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them” (source)

-Kyle Rittenhouse referring to looters 15 days before shooting 3 people.

If that doesn’t proove intent and pre meditation I don’t know what does. Self defense my ass. What a dog and pony show.

@Nomore_lockout Judge wouldn’t allow it to be played to the jury. He said it wasn’t relevant.

Sickening farce.

Well now I have doubts. Maybe this human piece of garbage is not an idiot after all. He is a cold calculating murdering psychopath who knew how to act. Who waited until people went after him so he can kill them. I heard there are Republicans celebrating the verdict. He should run for President.

@mazingerz88 Why yes there are protesters that shoot and kill innocent unarmed people. They celebrate their murders. Amazingly they sound amazingly like you and some of the others: “He fucking deserved to die!”

But also consider that these “peaceful” protests bring on even more violence. Forget the billions in property damage they cause, the lives they destroy by their looting and arson and breaking of windows, but their efforts to defund the police have actually shown to result in mass shootings going up in these cities. Of course the media doesn’t ever really want to talk about that, do they? Nah…doesn’t fit the narrative.

@gorillapaws So is it your stance that arson, looting, vandalism, and assault and murder are all okay as long as they are in the name of protest? OR are you just trying to deflect from what was a legitimate question?

Oh, and @gorillapaws have you wondered why that video was not allowed to be seen in court? Could it possibly be that it doesn’t actually show Rittenhouse? That it is just who they say was the voice? Prove it was Rittenhouse on that tape, that it wasn’t some made up tape by some idiot on the left trying to frame Rittenhouse, or that it wasn’t dubbed over somehow. Or hey! how about this: It has no bearing on anything. Trying to pull up something from weeks or years before the event has no impact on whether the rioters were physically attacking him on the night he shot them. But again…it appears you don’t see anything wrong with running up behind someone and trying to clobber them with a brick or kicking a person that is on the ground and beating him with a skateboard or even pointing a gun at him…as long as you are on the side of the violent protesters.

@seawulf575 “So is it your stance that arson, looting, vandalism, and assault and murder are all okay as long as they are in the name of protest?”

I’ve never endorsed criminal behavior.

“Could it possibly be that it doesn’t actually show Rittenhouse?”

It is my understanding that the authenticity of the video was never in dispute nor that it was Rittenhouse’s voice on the tape. It was excluded from evidence because the judge ruled that it was irrelevant. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and he didn’t say those things.

“But again…it appears you don’t see anything wrong with running up behind someone and trying to clobber them with a brick or kicking a person that is on the ground and beating him with a skateboard or even pointing a gun at him…as long as you are on the side of the violent protesters.”

Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at unarmed people without cause. That’s illegal and initiated the entire chain of events. People were right to try to disarm him. Later after he murdered an unarmed man by shooting him 4 times, he fled the scene and bystanders were trying to incapacitate an active shooter. Grosskreutz would have been fully justified if he’d just start pumping rounds into Rittenhouse from 30 feet away. It’s like the bank robber claiming self-defense when bystanders try to stop him. Think of the precedent this sets.

@gorillapaws: It’s like Ahmaud Arbery’s shooter claiming self defense when Ahmaud was attacking him.

@gorillapaws My comment about holding people accountable that want to beat and kill others referred to the rioters. Your comment was a dodge of that and you avoided that aspect of it. So since you didn’t, possibly can’t, denounce the actions of the rioters/arsonists/assaulters/looters, you obviously support them. All you can do, rather than hold them accountable, is to try deflecting back to Rittenhouse.

Your understanding that the tape was legit may or may not be true. The point is that, as evidence, it is weak. It doesn’t show the person, doesn’t show them speaking, doesn’t have anything. If someone came forward and said they recorded it and Rittenhouse says it never happened, what then? It is one person’s word against the other. And in the end, as I said, it has no bearing on anything. The issue in this case is whether Rittenhouse was the loose cannon active shooter out to kill him some rioters or whether he was attacked and protected himself. What he said or didn’t say weeks ago has no bearing. Even if he had those feelings, that didn’t make anyone attack him.
As for pointing his gun at people, that didn’t happen either. He was seen in numerous videos walking with the rifle in his hands, pointed in the safe direction. You don’t see ANYWHERE that he threatened someone with it. There was no reason to try disarming him. Even with those he shot, he was trying to get away from them. It wasn’t until he had no way out that he brought the gun to bear.

But speaking of pointing guns at people, what about Grosskreutz? He had an illegally carried gun and by his own admission he pointed it at Rittenhouse first. The problem you are having is that you are hooked into the media narrative that Rittenhouse was an “active shooter”. That was the whole crux of the case. He was not an “active shooter”. He was an armed civilian trying to get to safety and protecting his own life. An “active shooter” is one that goes on a shooting spree with the sole purpose of shooting people. They don’t run from people as Rittenhouse did.

@seawulf575 “My comment about holding people accountable that want to beat and kill others referred to the rioters”

Right, you want to hold rioters accountable, but not kids coming into the area armed with assault rifles loaded with FMJ, who wanted to shoot them. Got it.

“So since you didn’t, possibly can’t, denounce the actions of the rioters/arsonists/assaulters/looters, you obviously support them.”

Wrong again. I don’t condone rioting/looting etc. I literally said that above. Don’t put words in my mouth or jump to false conclusions.

“If someone came forward and said they recorded it and Rittenhouse says it never happened, what then? It is one person’s word against the other.”

There are ways to verify the authenticity of video/audio recordings. This wasn’t done because the Judge ruled that it was irrelevant.

“The issue in this case is whether Rittenhouse was the loose cannon active shooter out to kill him some rioters”

This is EXACTLY why the video IS relevant.

“As for pointing his gun at people, that didn’t happen either… .You don’t see ANYWHERE that he threatened someone with it.”

Again, false

”...what about Grosskreutz? He had an illegally carried gun and by his own admission he pointed it at Rittenhouse first.”

Yes he had an expired concealed permit, so you’re right that it was technically illegal for him to be carrying it that night. His gun was not in a firing position at Rittenhouse. He would not have been able to make a shot from the way he was holding the weapon. After Rittenhouse blew his arm off, yes there’s a frame of video where the gun appears to be pointing at Rittenhouse. That’s what Grosskreutz acknowledged on the stand.

“He was an armed civilian trying to get to safety and protecting his own life”

He was a looser who wanted to look cool, provoked an unarmed person to attack him and then panicked and fired 4 rounds into him. He fled the scene and people were trying to incapacitate him.

@gorillapaws “I’ve never endorsed criminal behavior.” That is what you said. But endorsing and condemning are far apart in meaning. You’ve never condemned it either…until now when I backed you into it. Glad to see you can say you don’t condone it. Now, can you say that the rioters were the real source of all that happened afterward? If they had not been out of control and a violent, destructive mob, we wouldn’t have this thread?

Your next part about the video is selective cut and paste on your part. What I said about the veracity is very true. However I went on to say it had no bearing on anything which is EXACTLY why the judge ruled it irrelevant.

Again..on the next part, selective cut/paste. What I said…in its entirety…is “The issue in this case is whether Rittenhouse was the loose cannon active shooter out to kill him some rioters or whether he was attacked and protected himself. ” Being an active shooter means that is exactly why he was there. A video from weeks before, even if it were him, means nothing. It doesn’t show any proof of why he was in Kenosha. So the video is STILL irrelevant.

Yes, it is true that Rittenhouse did point his gun at people….after they attacked him. Rosenbaum had a brick in a bag that he threw at him and then charged him. You can see that on your video. Huber’s friend tripped Rittenhouse as he was running away and then Huber began kicking him and beating him with a skateboard. That was when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at him.

And let’s talk about Grosskreutz. Yes, he was carrying his gun illegally. Funny how we want to gloss over that when everyone was ready to hang Rittenhouse over the same basic thing. Why did he have to bring a gun to a peaceful protest? Why was it so important that he knowingly broke the law to do so? But beyond that, your view of what happened was so far off base as to be ridiculous. He told the prosecutor that he was not pointing at Rittenhouse but that Rittenhouse fired at him and it misfired so he was recocking his rifle when good old Gaige pointed his gun. But under cross-examination, the defense asked him if he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse first and he said no. They then showed the video of the event right up to where his arm was shot as he pointed the gun right at Rittenhouse. He was then asked “it wasn’t until you advanced on him with your gun pointed at him and your hands down that he pointed his rifle and fired?” The answer FROM GROSSKREUTZ HIMSELF was “correct”. His testimony, above just about everything else, is what gave the innocent verdict. It confirmed exactly what Rittenhouse had said all along. It made everything else that the prosecution had conjectured suspect.

In self defense, of course.