Kyle Rittenhouse speaks to Tucker Carlson in first TV interview

[sshotrr]

That was after.
Grosskreutz thought Rittenhouse might be an active shooter and advanced on him gun drawn. He then decides not to fire, says he had hands raised (while admitting he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse during all this chaos).

The Prosecutor even asked him why he didn't shoot Rittenhouse first.

Unfortunately, there are people drawing the conclusion that his mistake was exactly that, not shooting first.
If he had shot first, it would have probably also been legitimate self defense under Wisconsin law.

Could of should of . You are playing in"' What if ? " .

 

[sshotrr]

I already posted it in the thread that was closed. So Google it for once!!

This Rittenhouse individual had already dropped out of school prior to him killing those two protesters.

So are you saying that he was threatened during his schooling days and hence had to drop out? Really!! Why was he threatened??

You could of saved yourself so much writing by just posting a link .

 

[Valcazar]

Could of should of . You are playing in"' What if ? " .

No.
You are misunderstanding.

I am pointing out that it is bad that there is a minority of people who go to protests who are drawing this conclusion from the trial.

 

[Valcazar]

It's nice NOT to have dead people lying in the street. Call it a societal goal.

And that's a lot bigger than whether you think Rittenhouse is a good kid or a bad kid or something in between.

That people don't seem to understand this is fucking crazy.

 

[bver_hunter]

You could of saved yourself so much writing by just posting a link .

Again just try Googling it. Not going to keep on posting the same link to those lazy enough to keep on demanding it!!

 

[bearjew]

That was after.
Grosskreutz thought Rittenhouse might be an active shooter and advanced on him gun drawn. He then decides not to fire, says he had hands raised (while admitting he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse during all this chaos).

The Prosecutor even asked him why he didn't shoot Rittenhouse first.

Unfortunately, there are people drawing the conclusion that his mistake was exactly that, not shooting first.
If he had shot first, it would have probably also been legitimate self defense under Wisconsin law.

actually no it would not he would be guilty of murder as at that point he would be attacking Rittenhouse who had not committed any crimes as proven in court

 

[sshotrr]

Again just try Googling it. Not going to keep on posting the same link to those lazy enough to keep on demanding it!!

Again you typed way more then just clicking copy and paste . I'm not going on wild chases .

 

[bver_hunter]

Again you typed way more then just clicking copy and paste . I'm not going on wild chases .

Now rush to his defence:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458496366578126853

So for once just stop being lazy as it takes just a few seconds!!

 

[sshotrr]

Now rush to his defence:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458496366578126853

So for once just stop being lazy as it takes just a few seconds!!

I wonder what prompted this situation . It had nothing to do with the case . If this was more then a school yard fight . The police would have been involved . Maybe should have been involved .

 

[Valcazar]

actually no it would not he would be guilty of murder as at that point he would be attacking Rittenhouse who had not committed any crimes as proven in court

No.
Rittenhouse would be dead and Grosskreutz would be (possibly) on trial.
And he would claim self defense since he just saw that kid shoot two other people.
And he would be correct to do so under Wisconsin law.
A jury would be hard pressed to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no justification.

That's the thing with the law.
Everyone there probably had self defense reasons for attacking the other people.
At the very least, they all have a plausible argument for it, after which it becomes which narrative about who has the right to be the aggrieved party comes into play.

 

[bver_hunter]

I wonder what prompted this situation . It had nothing to do with the case . If this was more then a school yard fight . The police would have been involved . Maybe should have been involved .

There should be no excuses for any one at that age punching a girl. PERIOD!!
He may have been a 16 or 17 year old, but have you laid a finger at a girl when you were that young??

 

[sshotrr]

No.
Rittenhouse would be dead and Grosskreutz would be (possibly) on trial.
And he would claim self defense since he just saw that kid shoot two other people.
And he would be correct to do so under Wisconsin law.
A jury would be hard pressed to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no justification.

That's the thing with the law.
Everyone there probably had self defense reasons for attacking the other people.
At the very least, they all have a plausible argument for it, after which it becomes which narrative about who has the right to be the aggrieved party comes into play.

Ya probably the prohibition from owning guns might hinder his innocence .

 

[sshotrr]

There should be no excuses for any one at that age punching a girl. PERIOD!!
He may have been a 16 or 17 year old, but have you laid a finger at a girl when you were that young??

I agree no man should raise a hand to a woman . But you nor I were there as to what took place and why . Was he trying to stop the smaller girl from getting beaten ? Maybe or maybe not . Still had nothing to do with the case .

 

[bver_hunter]

I agree no man should raise a hand to a woman . But you nor I were there as to what took place and why . Was he trying to stop the smaller girl from getting beaten ? Maybe or maybe not . Still had nothing to do with the case .

If you want to "stop" a fight, how is throwing punches a way to stop it? Especially as it could hurt one of the two girls involved. The others in the group seem to be trying to separate the two involved in that fight. All he was doing was throwing punches. But then the right wing media like Carlson and others like Trump were painting Rittenhouse as a hero. Really, with someone involved in such hideous acts as punching some girl? But why are you trying to make excuses for him throwing those punches when there are other ways to stop a fight?

 

[basketcase]

actually no it would not he would be guilty of murder as at that point he would be attacking Rittenhouse who had not committed any crimes as proven in court

Strange because you don't seem to apply the "crimes proven in court" to the guys Kyle shot.

 

[basketcase]

If you want to "stop" a fight, how is throwing punches a way to stop it? Especially as it could hurt one of the two girls involved. The others in the group seem to be trying to separate the two involved in that fight. All he was doing was throwing punches. But then the right wing media like Carlson and others like Trump were painting Rittenhouse as a hero. Really, with someone involved in such hideous acts as punching some girl? But why are you trying to make excuses for him throwing those punches when there are other ways to stop a fight?

Maybe he wanted to stop the fight by knocking the two girls out.

 

[bver_hunter]

Maybe he wanted to stop the fight by knocking the two girls out.

True, as his punches were not very precise at just one of the two girls. But then he is a "Hero" to Sucker Carlson who ranted and raved about this individual for two days on his show.
Where is the USA heading when they have a section of the media praising such individuals?

 

[bearjew]

No.
Rittenhouse would be dead and Grosskreutz would be (possibly) on trial.
And he would claim self defense since he just saw that kid shoot two other people.
And he would be correct to do so under Wisconsin law.
A jury would be hard pressed to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no justification.

That's the thing with the law.
Everyone there probably had self defense reasons for attacking the other people.
At the very least, they all have a plausible argument for it, after which it becomes which narrative about who has the right to be the aggrieved party comes into play.

its not self defense if you saw him do something, he has to threaten your safety and since he was the one chasing after Rittenhouse and was not threatened it would be murder the videos taken would show what happened and would convict him

 

[mandrill]

I agree no man should raise a hand to a woman . But you nor I were there as to what took place and why . Was he trying to stop the smaller girl from getting beaten ? Maybe or maybe not . Still had nothing to do with the case .

The reason this usually comes up is wrt the strut that KR is going to sue the shit out of CNN and make millions $$$$. There are photos of him giving the white power salute with the Proud Boys (already posted SEVERAL times). And now clouting the girl. There's probably more shit out there as well.

He'd end up looking pretty seedy if he went to trial civilly with all that shit on him. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[bearjew]

Strange because you don't seem to apply the "crimes proven in court" to the guys Kyle shot.

except kyle was cleared in court because the evidence clearly showed he was attacked and defended himself

kyle was charged and found not guilty