"Erupt" is a bit of hyperbole, more like bemoan. In light of the verdict I think vigilantism needs to be actively suppressed or there will be more lil' Kyles walking around getting in situations over their heads.
He's a punk for interfering with a riot. That's why the news media hates and subsequently why all the people who follow the news media hate him.
Opinion versus facts of the case. One of the thugs pointed a gun at Kyle. One of the thugs smashed a skateboard against Kyle’s head. One of the thugs. was armed with a knife. The narrative of carrying a gun across state lines is a fabrication. So, it does matter where he got it. The thugs were and are criminals. Do you have empathy for the victims of the thugs? Or is your ire solely reserved for Kyle because you believe the fake and irresponsible MSM?
"Incite violence"? "Danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street"? Looks like those lying sacks of **** want to get sued for defamation, too...
Odd that neither of those things happened here, isn't it?? Whatever.... we can debate these holes until the cows come up... the good news is I won't have to hear much about this snot after today... So that's a huge win...
In person its really obvious. You've got this white person with problem glasses going "well you don't want the blacks to carry guns DO YOU!?!?!?" and you say "well sure I do, everyone should" and they just start to FOAM AT THE MOUTH in response and you're left with only one reasonable explanation.
No, I haven't watched ALL this guy's trials. Have you? There are right wing democrats. There used to be left wing Republicans but I think Trump killed them all.
If the mayors in our nation's cities did their jobs, we wouldn't be taking about vigilantism right now.
All I have to say is he is damn lucky his assailants were white They were white and the media STILL called him a white supremacist Can you imagine if they were black? He’d be guilty on all counts for sure
The video proves that it was self-defense. There is nothing wrongful about defending yourself from violent convicts who are attacking you. I'm sure Kyle would win in a lawsuit against the estates of the deceased. However, they were lowlife scumbags who didn't have a pot to piss in. They were bums. Rosenbaum was broke, homeless and jobless. Huber was jobless too. Although he did have a skateboard. Kyle could sue and get that skateboard. I'm sure that would get a pretty penny at auction.
That's not how that works. Why you were there and what you were doing when shot definitely has relevance to whether or not you are a victim. You don't have to live in a town to possess a firearm there or walk around in public. Its 20 minutes away and a town he worked in and in which multiple members of his family lived. I travel a farther distance to go to the courthouse in my own county of residence (45 minute drive at 65mph).
Civil rights how? Everybody was white. The ones shot threatened grievous bodily harm to Kyle. Gess folks... this isn't rocket science.
Some mayors do. They are in red states. Trump dared to ask the blue states to do the same but they bravely stood up to Trump by allowing the riots to burn their cities. They sure showed him!
There is no such thing as a “right-winged” Democrat FFS. A “moderate” Democrat isn’t “right-wing”. People like you label everyone who isn’t a Bolshevik Marxist as “right-wing”. That is why your party is crumbling and losing power not even a year into its administration. Your party is a disgrace.
Just goes to show Democrat judges aren't biased. I guess whenever a ruling doesn't go the way Republicans want, we can ignore the crying about "the judge was a democrat!"
I'm not angry. Like I mentioned above to another user, your reading comprehension seems to decline when interpreting opinions that oppose yours. I'm in complete disagreement that Rittenhouse should face ZERO consequences for killing two unarmed people, regardless of who they were or why they were there. That does not equal anger on my part. That does not mean that I think the victims were innocent. It's projecting, as so many here seem to be doing. It seems very defensive to me.
No, but I did read the article in the news quoting a local attorney who appears in his court for criminal cases with regularity. Did you? By the way: This is from NBC ffs. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...r-disallowing-word-victims-courtroom-n1282559 While legal experts and lawyers familiar with state laws say Schroeder is well within his authority to set boundaries on language, his rule sets the stage for further scrutiny in a highly charged trial that has captured national attention since Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was arrested in August 2020. He faces multiple charges, including homicide, in the fatal shootings of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz. "That's pretty standard in his courtroom to not allow 'victim,'" said Ted Kmiec, a local criminal defense lawyer who has had cases before Schroeder. "He believes you're presumed innocent, and with that presumption of innocence, nobody is a victim unless it's proven." Keith Findley, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin and a former public defender, said that while the order is more of a "defense-friendly position," it's not entirely unjustified, because it would "allow the prosecution to continually use language that suggests a conclusion as if it's a given fact to jurors." On the other hand, he said, words like "looter" and "rioter" carry negative connotations, and it "feels a little bit jarring for the court to ban the use of one descriptor and not another." Juliet Sorensen, a professor at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law, said a judge who wants to appear impartial "should not want unfair prejudice to creep in through any language." "If the judge is trying to sanitize the language around the events that occurred at that time, I don't know why he wouldn't extend it to those other words," she said. "Describe the events, put in the evidence at trial of what happened that night, and we can avoid all language that is potentially inflammatory."
No. What it shows is that moderate Democrats are siding with Republicans versus the “progressive” left that the Democrats are turning into.
