Kyle Rittenhouse...

[firstfloor]

I was REALLY REALLY hoping that you would show at least one little glimmer of decency and apologize for trying to make a hero out of this pervert. I REALLY was.

Instead, you double down on stupidity.

Did he not have mental health issues? I don’t think he can be assessed to be doing anything perverted at the time he was shot.

That could have been you running after Kyle.

This sort of after the fact character assassination, victim blaming is totally unjustified and very unfair to someone who is unable to defend himself.

[tabibito]

Did he not have mental health issues? I don’t think he can be assessed to be doing anything perverted at the time he was shot.

That could have been you running after Kyle.

This sort of after the fact character assassination, victim blaming is totally unjustified and very unfair to someone who is unable to defend himself.

Strange that the ones whom video evidence, from multiple angles, shows to be the aggressors are the only ones in your narrative deserving of any benefit of the doubt.

None of those who were shot were "running after" Rittenhouse at the time of the shooting - the two who died were in the act of attacking him - the third was in the act of levelling a pistol at him.
All evidence indicates that Rittenhouse was the intended victim - which makes you the one indulging in victim blaming.

[Cow Poke]

Technically yes. Consider a person who committed a criminal act, is tried and found ‘not guilty’. That person walks freely out of the court knowing his own guilt, and the prosecution is finished. So not guilty really means that proceedings against a person are concluded. The jury are not perfect, and they make imperfect decisions.

The jury had FAR more information than you have, and you ignore most of the facts. The jury, even knowing their verdict might inflame more riots, courageously did the right thing.

Rittenhouse walked out of the courtroom innocent of murder.

Your choice of heroes says a whole lot about your moral character.

[tabibito]

The jury had FAR more information than you have, and you ignore most of the facts. The jury, even knowing their verdict might inflame more riots, courageously did the right thing.

Rittenhouse walked out of the courtroom innocent of murder.

Your choice of heroes says a whole lot about your moral character.

Of course, he might have something in the way of concrete evidence to show that the jury got it wrong. Perhaps is we were made aware of this hitherto undisclosed evidence, we too could concur with his assessment. So far, his contribution wouldn't do anything to convince any conspiracy theorist that I have ever heard of.
Of course, if he doesn't have any such evidence, all he is doing is engaging in slander.

[firstfloor]

Strange that the ones whom video evidence, from multiple angles, shows to be the aggressors are the only ones in your narrative deserving of any benefit of the doubt.

None of those who were shot were "running after" Rittenhouse at the time of the shooting - the two who died were in the act of attacking him - the third was in the act of levelling a pistol at him.
All evidence indicates that Rittenhouse was the intended victim - which makes you the one indulging in victim blaming.

But you know, I suppose, that the prosecution showed evidence that Rittenhouse was first to raise his weapon, and the others responded to that provocation, then Kyle responded to their reaction by running away to cover. All in very quick succession. If that is what happened his self defense claim fails.

The jury decided otherwise. I think it is a very close call.

[Cow Poke]

Of course, he might have something in the way of concrete evidence to show that the jury got it wrong. Perhaps is we were made aware of this hitherto undisclosed evidence, we too could concur with his assessment. So far, his contribution wouldn't do anything to convince any conspiracy theorist that I have ever heard of.
Of course, if he doesn't have any such evidence, all he is doing is engaging in slander.

I think he's posting from an insane asylum when they allow him to use the computer in the game room.

[Gondwanaland]

Not “found innocent” found not guilty - meaning that the State of Wisconsin failed to convince a jury, beyond reasonable doubt that the killer Rittenhouse was not entitled to the self defense excuse he claimed; I think as a result of the dodgy explanation of what happened just before he started running.

I have looked at the video a few times and I am pretty sure that Rosenbaum was heroically trying to grab him before he shot someone.

Your hero Rosenbaum was a child rapist who had spent the night threatening to kill people for protecting businesses, changing the n-word (why am I not surprised he's you're hereo?), and challenging and demanding that people shoot him. He messed around with the wrong kid, tried to harm him, and got his wish granted.

[Gondwanaland]

But you know, I suppose, that the prosecution showed evidence that Rittenhouse was first to raise his weapon, and the others responded to that provocation,

No, they did not. I already refuted your crap, as did the prosecution's star witness.

[Gondwanaland]

It’s not racism from 40 years ago,

Oh? So you're positing that releasing him is racist? Interesting take there, son.

it has lasted for 40 years, as fresh as the day it was born. I am sorry that you think this is useless news. Of course, I will have more to share - we have a plentiful supply of similar tales.

Of course you will, because you thrive on your invented racism.

[tabibito]

But you know, I suppose, that the prosecution showed evidence that Rittenhouse was first to raise his weapon, and the others responded to that provocation, then Kyle responded to their reaction by running away to cover. All in very quick succession. If that is what happened his self defense claim fails.

The jury decided otherwise. I think it is a very close call.

Where were these others when he raised his weapon - and what prompted him to do so?
The jury watched the videos repeatedly - and did not conclude that he had done anything provocative.
It was about the only thing left in the prosecution's case after their star witness scuttled the rest of it.

[NorrinRadd]

Just watched the Rittenhouse interview on Tucker Carlson. It was ok. I still think he shouldn't have done it.

found it online:

I liked it. I thought Kyle came across quite well.

I was particularly struck by his descriptions of the jail conditions and of his original shyster legal team.

[NorrinRadd]

Tucker was probably the wrong person to go to. He's too sensationalistic, and frankly doesn't carry alot of weight except in certain niche circles. He would have been better going to Shepherd Smith, or someone like that who at least has a better reputation as a straight shooter.

Who except Shemp himself thinks of him as a "straight shooter"?

[NorrinRadd]

What the ....

It wasn't illegal for Rittenhouse to have the rifle, but his friend gets charged for supplying a minor with a firearm.

How the hell does that work?

Maybe Kyle's lawyers will take the case.

[NorrinRadd]

I liked it. I thought Kyle came across quite well.

I was particularly struck by his descriptions of the jail conditions and of his original shyster legal team.

Oh, and the part where he said that when he tried to surrender to the police, they pepper-sprayed him and sent him away.

He also said it was possible they couldn't hear him properly over all the chaos.

[rogue06]

I'm just surprised they didn't include the lie that Jacob Blake was "murdered" or "killed" by police. Blake is very much alive, but Dan Bongino had a blast mocking all of the liberal talking heads who kept repeating the lie that Blake was "shot dead".

IIRC one of those reporters proclaiming he was shot dead had actually interviewed him after the shooting.