Kyle Rittenhouse criticized Donald Trump. So conservatives said he's transgender.

Haha misgendering is so funny you’re so funny

The fonz? Do you mean outspoken cuntservative who is "totally a leftist"?

This is what happens when undereducated knuckledraggers do a psyop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting?wprov=sfla1

I summoned one. Again.

How disappointing.

This is the "The Civil War was about State's Rights" argument and I need a meme of a duck saying "Why was Rittenhouse there in the first place?"

WHY WAS HE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

OJ Simpson also wasn't convicted.

It seems kind of obvious Rittenhouse went looking for a situation he could put himself in so that he could shoot somebody. That's murder if you can prove it, but good luck proving it.

I'm a leftie progressive (...) But the events that led to the death of those people that day was due to self defense.

So you're not a willfully blind idiot for party political reasons. I wonder what convinced you then..

This has been established through clear video footage and a lengthy trial with a jury of his peers

Ah, an ignorant faith in the veracity of doctored or otherwise misleading out of context footage and the integrity of the US legal system 🤦

Can you demonstrate why it wasn't self defense?

Dude brought an AR-15 to a word fight. In another state. After telling friends that he wanted to shoot BLM protesters. He then harassed peaceful protesters until some of them tried to stop him. He then murdered the people trying to stop him.

Regarding victim number one. Bringing a gun to a protest and starting shit then shooting people doesn't constitute self defense because you normally can't provoke the situation you are defending yourself from. Also the only thing that made the situation deadly dangerous was literally the gun in his hand if not for that it would have been a fist fight at worst. More likely absent a weapon to give him courage he just wouldn't have started shit.

Regarding victims 2 and 3 they were trying to stop what they correctly perceived as an active shooter they did not pursue lethal force against him he could have surrendered the gun non-violently. You normally have a legal obligation to use the lease force possible.

The law being what it is guilt or innocence it a fight is often questionable and subject to state specific laws but morally speaking I don't understand why anyone would not hold him responsible for what happened. He is by all accounts a garbage human being and people are dead because he is a garbage human being.

Here is what one of the people who helped him win his legal case said

We invested significant effort to craft the image you witnessed during the trial. We outfitted him in new suits, arranged for his haircut every weekend during the trial, and dedicated over 200 hours to prepare him for direct and cross-examination. We employed the world's leading jury consultant and conducted extensive research through three mock trials to identify the ideal jurors and the most effective approach for his testimony.

Transforming a middle school dropout who was "angry at the world" with a history of violence and an unhealthy obsession with guns and killing into a respectable young man with a desire for higher education and a promising future was no easy feat.

It was a meticulously crafted facade, which we sincerely hoped he would grow into. Instead, he squandered a full scholarship to study any subject at any university in the country to become a divisive douchebag and antagonize black Americans on college campuses. Kyle failed to learn a single thing. He remains the same uneducated, arrogant, and antagonistic individual, incapable of telling the truth.

Now, he genuinely believes he is the show pony we created and has surrounded himself with sycophants who fuel his inflated ego because they prioritize their political agenda and Christian Nationalist worldview over his well-being.

Despite my efforts to guide him toward a better path in life, the allure of notoriety triumphed over the prospect of putting in the hard work of pursuing an education. I regret my role in shaping him into whatever he has become. If I had known what I know now about Kyle's History, I wouldn't have been involved.

He's also a moron. He obtained his high school diploma by cheating on online tests and then went to take the ASVAB and managed to score a 10, a typical average score for a high school graduate is 50, the minimum you can get into the military is 30. We are talking about questions like

If there are three quarts of gas in a gallon container, how full is the container? 50% 60% 75% 80%

I don't even know how its possible to score a 10

Intent: They drove like over an hour across state lines to Kenosha in hopes of finding somebody to kill then placed himself in harms way by wandering into a group of people.

The goal was always to kill people and thats what makes it murder.

as a leftie

Real I'm a black gay guy vibes here.

Show us your leftie registration papers please.

Let’s say a person doesn’t like certain other types of people (be it due to race, religion, political views, or whatever), and that person also glorifies violence against those types of people and they glorify gun violence in general.

Let’s also say this person knowingly and willingly (and possibly illegally) puts themselves in harm’s way, while carrying a gun, amongst those same certain types of people.

Then they get into a situation where they have to use “self defense” in order to escape harm from those people. Luckily they had that gun with them!

Was it legally “self defense?” Yes, apparently. Could it be argued that it was also “hunting” disliked group of people, as if for sport? Yes.

Did Rittenhouse successfully use a self defense plea to get away with murder? Some would argue that he did.

Does every act of self defense automatically classify someone as a murderer?

By definition, murder is the unjustified killing of a human. This is why homicide is the preferred term, with murder, if it’s mentioned at all, is a particularly egregious form of homicide.

But the events that led to the death of those people that day was due to self defense.

Nope. He sought that conflict out. The verdict aside, the chain of events leading to that conflict lead to him being there, being in that confrontation, and willfully engaging in that confrontation.

Oh lookie here so called "leftist" that's really a right wing troll

They did NOT establish definitively that it was self defense.

The verdict established that the murders were not premeditated, which they weren’t.

For the charge of 1st degree murder the prosecution had to prove premeditation which they were unable to do, hence the not guilty.

For some inexplicable reason, the prosecution failed to also charge 2nd degree, which would have likely received a guilty verdict.

Please note the distinction: while the defense certainly argued self defense, the not guilty verdict does not prove the defense theory to be correct, it simply proves the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof regarding premeditation, nothing more.

In the US legal system, people are not proclaimed innocent, they are found to be guilty or not guilty. Not guilty of one particular charge does not mean that the defendant is innocent of all crimes.

I watched the entire trial.

If you had asked an NRA-affiliated self defense instructor in 2019 if what Rittenhouse did was self defense, they would have told you unequivocally no.

Yeah maybe August 2024 is when someone finally says something new on the topic... Jesus Christ. You know why it wasn't self defense. You don't agree, but you know why. So just stop.

"Can you demonstrate why it wasn't self defense?"

That, alone, is super easy for anyone familiar with how self defense works.

Source: I have a permit to carry concealed in my state and passed an instructional course to be able to do so.

One of the very first things you learn about self defense is that you cannot initiate a conflict and then later claim self defense.

Rittenhouse was safe. He was in another state, 20 miles from the conflict, and chose to endanger himself by bringing a weapon into an area of unrest.

At that point, self defense should have been off the table. He chose to engage, that's not self defense.

We got a sealion here...

Shoo, back into the muddy waters. Shoo!

Can you demonstrate why it wasn’t self defense?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Sure, legally it was self defense. My read of the situation is that he clearly went looking for trouble with his shiny new AR, exactly as he'd expressed a desire to do.

He found the trouble he was looking for, and to his immense luck he not only managed to fight his way free of it, but managed to do so in a way that legally qualified as self defense, and also gave us this laughable performance to roll our eyes at.

Legally, self defense. In my opinion he went there to murder, he just didn't know who it would be or whether he'd get his chance.

Does every act of self defense automatically classify someone as a murderer?

No. Acts of self defense happen every day, and the vast majority do not have people calling them a murder.
This is an incredibly disingenuous statement that is ignoring the facts around this specific case of self defense.

BTW, for the record I'm a leftie progressive.

Irrelevant. Ad hominem. Whether or not you're a leftie has no effect on the strength of the argument you are presenting.

the events that led to the death of those people that day was due to self defense.

Rittenhouse did manage to engineer a situation in which everyone involved had a credible claim of self defense. I will point out however that one of "the events that led to the death of those people that day" was Rittenhouse deciding to go to a town he had no good reason to be with the stated goal of "protecting property".

If a criminal breaks into someone's house and the owner charges at them with a baseball bat the criminal is "acting on self defense" if they shoot the owner. The criminal still shouldn't have been there in the first place and the entire situation is the criminal's fault.
Now replace the criminal with someone who had a grudge against the owner, and broke in hoping this would be the outcome. The legal system would only find them guilty of breaking and entering, but that person is a murderer.

Anyone who disagrees needs to establish they know the facts

The fact of the matter is Rittenhouse's stated reason for being there with a gun in the first place was to "protect property" from people who were protesting the murder of George Floyd. Because in his mind it is acceptable to shoot people to protect property, it is not acceptable to damage property to protect lives.

Can you demonstrate why it wasn't self defense?

It's both.
Yes, legally Rittenhouse was acting in self defense. He is also a murder who went there with the hope of being able to insert himself into a situation where he could kill someone.

Does every act of self defense automatically classify someone as a murderer?

Depends on whether or not somebody was killed and whether or not you're using the word "murderer" in its technical legal sense.

BTW, for the record I'm a leftie progressive.

Why bring that up? Your argument should be able to stand on its own. Am I supposed to say, "Oh, I didn't agree with your argument before, but now that I know you're on the same team I'm on, I can see it in a completely different light now!" GTFO.

somewhere in America a far right person is gritting their teeth babbling something about 'antifa'

That's because so many governors have made hunting liberal protesters legal. It'll be federally legalized if not mandated if Trump gets back in.

Legally speaking, it's a factually incorrect opinion. So if course it's going to be controversial. I'm not sure why you're surprised.

He was literally acquitted by a jury of his peers of murder. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's shocking that one would be surprised some people think he isn't guilty.

All of his shootings were legally self defense

Not quite… The jury’s decision simply indicated that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the defense’s position was accepted as fact. This is an important distinction.

… at trial the jury absolutely decided his case correctly.

Agreed, but keep in mind he was found to be not guilty, which is not the same thing as innocent.

Because he's immensely, painfully stupid.

Immensely, painfully, and dangerously stupid.

But we really, really don't need to give him any more of a spotlight than he already has.

Fair enough, but I think that this case should be taught in law school as an example of prosecutorial negligence in that if he were simply charged appropriately, 2nd degree non premeditated and/or manslaughter, he would be in prison now for a minimum of 15 years but probably closer to 25 years.

The choice to only charge 1st degree, which took on the burden of proving premeditation, was the biggest legal blunder of our time… worse than Alex Jones’s lawyer sending the full cell phone copy to the prosecutor, which was an absolute joy to watch live as it happened.

“We have always been at war with Oceania”

The best books... are those that tell you what you know already. :)

He had a bunch of what I’m assuming were paid appearances canceled immediately.

The people against "cancel culture" strike again!

That you, Mr. Lahey?

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

When you shit your pants and then you get a whiff

So much for those that "can always tell".

I feel gross having said that

That’s good. There are those who fear feeling gross about saying that.

Surprised? These are people who will call you gay or a woman as an insult. Anything feminine that is not actively producing babies is an affront to their snowflake sensibilities.

Nah, I've been waiting for this for a while. The Republican party is a house divided against itself, with wealthy donors on one side and the culture warriors they depend on for electoral relevance on the other.

When they collapse, Democrats will face challengers from the left while they triangulate towards former Republican voters.

A Republican schism is just what the Green and Libertarian parties need.

“The proof is that there isn’t any proof”

Sums it up beautifully. I am so stealing this. Thank you!

What!? Everybody knows; Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence. :)

Calling somebody a member of any “other” group is an insult in that world

Which is why they're losing their goddamned minds when people point out how weird they are

✅ ✅ ✅ ❌ ✅ ❌ ❌ ❌ ❌

Damn, I'm no default man. 4/9 is a fail.

Sound like you're making up stories

So 2?

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT WE COULD'VE HAD SOMETHING NICE HERE BUT YOU JUST HAD TO GO AND RUIN IT FOR FUCKS SAKE

Making a small joke at the implication. Guess I made a joke with the wrong team involved. .just another headline driving division, I guess most people get off on that stuff these days.

Enjoy your rage bait I guess...