Kyle Rittenhouse... NOT GUILTY

[man down]

No, that a civilian armed himself and went looking to do a job that really should be left to the people we pay to do that job. All things considered, things could have turned out a lot worse. Someone could have been killed who was not an intended target.

Again, ***** offered help and it was denied. Cops were told to stand down. The state should be held accountable.

That said ***** offered help for tonight and the governor accepted. Lol

[4truth]

In other words sets the precedent that "Civilians" don't need the State to be responsible for their personal safety or their private property.

You say bad precedent, I say Thank God. Hopefully this will open up more eyes.

Right..lets get some more armed participants. Not much chance that could go wrong.

[Left Hook Tua]

Exactly, now imagine me going to the hood and saying it was self defense around dudes I don't know? Lol.

I'ma be next on trial lmao

If they attack you still self Defense

but no one is gonna raise millions of dollars to bail our asses out and hire us attorneys though lol

this kid got lucky

If he had a public defender, he'd be in prison til 40 at minimum

america is not about race

Ppl need to stop with the race talk

America is about money

If Kobe and oj was white but poor...... they'd have lost

[Left Hook Tua]

Right..lets get some more armed participants. Not much chance that could go wrong.

There's a half a billion guns in America

There are always armed participants

Google "homeowner shoots intruder" or "store owner shoots robber" or "person shoots carjacker/mugger/rapist"

It happens a lot

More than ppl think

Go on YouTube

Tons of videos of criminals getting capped by their "victims"

[1bad65]

not my point.

Maybe a 17 year old kid shouldn’t show up armed to an already volatile situation with zero crowd control experience. Wouldn’t have had to defend himself then. No one asked for his help or any of the other gun carrying civilians.

"Maybes" and "shouldas" don't cut it.

The fact is Mr Rittenhouse had every legal right to be where he was and to be armed. That's indisputable.

And when an American is not committing any crimes, he has the right to defend himself if assaulted.


Of course you could have also asked why the mentally defective pedophile, the wife-beater, and the guy with the illegal gun showed up to a volatile situation with zero crowd control experience, but you didn't. Interesting double standard there......

[siablo14]

Ppl that thought Rittenhouse committed self defense:

1. Ppl who saw the videos
2. Ppl who watched the trial
3. Ppl who read facts about the case


Ppl that thought Rittenhouse was guilty:

1. Ppl who only watch/read mainstream media
2. Ppl who didn't follow the trial
3. Ppl who just want to virtue signal or push a political narrative

How you think the Arbery case will end?

[Left Hook Tua]

Prison is full of people that were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

He did defend himself but again prison is full of people that defended themselves.

So yeah there should be a little emphasis on him putting himself in a bad situation as a lot of men have put themselves in bad situations and are in prison for less, you should know this.

There's a big difference between ppl "posted up" or dealing or tagging or committing crimes when they act in self defense

You lose self defense when it comes to criminal activity

Just depends on your lawyer, judge, jury

Luck of the draw

I had one homeboy he was standing outside of our pool hall plush cue, guys tried to jump him

He smoked 2 of them, barely did time, ruled self defense



Another homeboy, he was driving his car, 2 carloads of guys chase and shoot at his car

His car was Swiss cheese from bullet holes, they were chasing and shooting at him for a few blocks, my other homeboy fires back kills the driver of one of the cars

Not ruled self defense


Both were self defense but 1 didn't do much time, 1 got life

The guy that got life didn't even fire the gun

Just depends on the court

[TheMyspaceDayz]

Your point doesn't hold water. We're not a restricted populace. We are free to go where we like. Obviously we're free to riot, burn buildings and cop cars. Why do you want to limit the right of some?
I use to open carry daily before my CCWs in CA and in NV. Never had a issue. But I also wasn't attacked.

You’re free to go where you like but come on, what the kid did was ******. It was asking for trouble and anyone who thinks otherwise is putting their rights before common sense.

[4truth]

There's a half a billion guns in America

There are always armed participants

Google "homeowner shoots intruder" or "store owner shoots robber" or "person shoots carjacker/mugger/rapist"

It happens a lot

More than ppl think

Go on YouTube

Tons of videos of criminals getting capped by their "victims"

There is a big difference between a man defending his home or business and a man traveling to a trouble spot in another state. I was cheering the Korean store owners on during the Rodney King riots. Trouble was coming to them, they were not out looking for trouble.

[1bad65]

I think if you are in a dangerous situation and know it, you kind of invite the possibility of danger.

So a woman wearing a ***y outfit in a known pick-up bar is inviting danger, right?

And if she is attacked in that situation, would she still be able to use force to defend herself?