Posted on Nov 15, 2021
PFC David Foster
9.05K
746
353
21
21
0
E142f10
91081f64
Please feel free to express why you voted the way you did in comments.
Posted in these groups: 4eed38a0 KenoshaOriginal CrimeProtest logo Protest
Edited 10 d ago
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 45
SGM Retired
27
26
1
95fa093d
Leftists seem to see only one person who is guilty of a crime here ...
(27)
Comment
(1)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
18 h
Can't let it go can you? As a former Military Police Soldier, you know all too well that pulling the gun out after carrying it concealed all night does not make your actions legal. He was illegally carrying the weapon and you know it.

But's break it down... "Pointed it at someone" (after he revealed it when he was carrying it illegally)... A key point of the evidence which EVERYONE stated destroyed the prosecution's case. He stopped with his hands and gun up in the air (as he said), Kyle stopped as well (as he said), then he pointed the gun at Kyle (as he said), and Kyle defended himself.

If you also listened to the trial, you would note that Rosenbaum threatened the folks protecting businesses (while Kyle was present), he had a chain during multiple stages of the night, he attempted to ambush Kyle and God knows what from there. The video evidence proved he chased Kyle down, who attempted to run away. When cornered, Kyle stood his ground and shot Rosenbaum as he bore down on Kyle's weapon. There was ZERO reason for doing this and NO ONE could verify what was in the bag (which is irrelevant because the man was attempting to assault Kyle). Watch the drone video. Kyle defended himself.

The two other individuals decided to insert themselves into a situation in which they had no idea what was going on. Regardless of their intent being to stop a so-called "active shooter" (which is not what this was by definition). Kyle also has no idea what their intent was. All he knew was one guy almost took his head off with a skateboard and was attempting to do it again (so he defended himself). The other guy I covered above. Active Shooter is defined as "An individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” I've experienced an active shooter situation before and this was not it. Kyle was running away for his life as people yelled out "beat his ass" and "cranium". That is not an active shooter.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGM Retired
SGM (Join to see)
17 h
SPC Daniel Dresen I'm not the one who thinks the Constitution protects the "right" to commit arson, vandalism, assault and theft.

TERRORISM: The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals. Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.

When TERRORISTS decide to burn stuff down because they didn't get their way, defending the targets of TERRORISM isn't Vigilantism. Bet even if it were, I'd take vigilantism over terrorism.

People do have the right to due process and to a trial, and I'd prefer they got it. Once the trial is over, that needs to be accepted. That is the only thing Biden has said this year that I agreed with, "The jury system works and we have to abide by it."

By your own standard, the TERRORISTS should have accepted the jury verdict, but they didn't. And when two armed terrorists and a moron with a skateboard are trying to beat you to death and/or shoot you, killing them is a public service. Rabid animals should ALWAYS be put down.

Basically, what you are whining and crying about is that a bunch of assholes did not get to burn down a gas station and/or a police car. Grosskreutz had his day in court and he lost. Sucks to be them.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Daniel Dresen
SPC Daniel Dresen
15 h
SGM (Join to see) no but you think it protects premeditated murder. A week before the murderer acquired an AR15 IILLEGALLY from his friend and trafficked it across statelines, he witnessed a smash and grab at his local CVS where ON VIDEO, he said he would openly shoot looters. That's premeditated murder. He willingly put himself in a situation to kill. It was not self defense and you Trumptards can't understand that basic fact. He violated an open carry law by being underage and PLANNED to kill. Even the pedophile he shot got his day in court, but a trumptard judge blocked all of Kyle's Facebook posts and CVS video, and the gun itself which allowed him to walk. Trumptards don't give a flying fuck about the rule of law and only want to be ruled.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
5 h
SPC Daniel Dresen - You didn't read or listen to a single thing about this case did you? He did not acquire the AR-15, his friend bought it for him in anticipation of him turning 18 in the near future and regardless, everything was done legally according to WI law. Also, he never "crossed state lines" (you all say that like he's a foreign Solider crossing into another country), he met up with his friend in WI who handed it to him. It is also legal for him to carry the weapon, to which the Prosecutor had to agree as the law as written was ambiguous for 17 year olds. Read it for yourself. ALL of it, including the subsections and note the use of the word "AND" which is significant in legal documents.

As for the video (which I find interesting folks here who criticize Kyle also say the histories of the people he shot do not matter... Except for Kyle right?). This is what the unconfirmed video said in the video the Prosecutor wanted to use:

“It looks like one of them has a weapon,” says the person prosecutors identify as Rittenhouse, but who was not actually seen in the video.

“Brah, I wish I had my f—ing AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them,” says the same person in the video used in the filing.

People can read a lot into that. Was he concerned they were using their weapons? Maybe, maybe not... The records and prior actions unrelated to the night in question were deemed inadmissible as they lack context and relevance. Kyle did not simply shoot into a crowd of looters on the night he initially shot Rosenbaum. The jury agreed. His Facebook post showed nothing about Kyle other than him holding an AR-15 in a picture. There was nothing about Trump, nothing about white supremacy, nothing about politics what-so-ever.

As for the "trumptard" judge... You mean the one appointed by a Democrat and the one who continued to win re-election as a Democrat? Hmmm... I guess he's been playing the long con just to free a Trump supporter. Only, until after this trial, there hasn't been a shred of evidence Kyle even had a single thought about Trump? What the hell does Trump have to do with this case anyway? Trump didn't write WI law or the 2nd Amendment. None of this has anything to do with Trump. Next, how did the judge "block" the gun? The prosecutor had the gun at the trial and even flagged the courtroom with his finger on the trigger.

People here do care about the rule of law, and it doesn't take a Trump supporter to see this kid is innocent. I am by no means a Trump fan and I clearly saw Kyle defend himself. Furthermore, a jury of his peers agreed. Not guilty.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Dennis Hicks
26
25
1
Edited 10 d ago
Given the evidence he should be found innocent of Murder, but with the threats to the Judge, the jury being followed and having the jurors cars photographed as usual with mentally unstable folks pushing a narrative nobody can be sure. If Rhitenhouse is not found guilty on any charge their will still be riots, ,mostly peaceful protests :) The Prosecutors both were asshats and unworthy of their position with their actions and words.
(26)
Comment
(1)
Jud Newborn
Jud Newborn
5 d
MSG Clyde Mills - I understand there was ambiguity in this. (As to politics, I'm an independent thinker, not an ideologist.). I stay by my feeling that the boy was an immature kid with a bloated ego, who got himself into trouble - and wound up killing two guys, possibly, i acknowledge, in terror for himself. BUt he shoiuld have been charged with reckless endangerment. (Unless they had tried him as a juvenile, since he was 17 when this happened.) He shoiuild not have had an AR-25 and taken it across state lines. Finalkly - having been exonorate, his comment suggest he has learned nothing, and feels justified to the point of encouraging others too to be vigiantes. And that's the worst. I think this is a very reasoned response to your comments, not an ideological one.
(1)
Reply
(1)
Jud Newborn
Jud Newborn
5 d
MSG Clyde Mills - By the way, to clarify where my thinking comes from: I'm 69. I adhere to the values of my father, his co-horts in the "Great Generation," and those who fought WWII in service of their country's most important, cherished values. That should clarify my answer.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSG Clyde Mills
MSG Clyde Mills
5 d
Jud Newborn - Then if you go by the morals and values of your Father, then you should know (ALL) the facts before making such a remark on the Situation. It was not against the law for him to carry the weapon and defend himself, cleared by Jury of his peers in Court. Secondly, he did not transport the rifle across State lines, his friend who owns the gun did and perfectly legal as well. He didn't need to learn anything, his Mother has taught him well enough that when people need help. He jumped at the chance to go and help defend his Grandparents Place of Business and also to help the Car Lot owner protect his as well. So with your 69 years of knowledge, you need to learn to know the facts before spouting off about what you think is the law, cause you certainty don't know the law well enough to be a PC posting Lawyer. Where as in my case, I have a son and D-I-L who are Police Officer's and my oldest son is an Attorney. So I got the facts of the case and know that this young man did nothing wrong at all. Just like if it had been myself or anyone else that might have been in his shoes that night. 100% Self Defense from 3 criminals who were breaking the law and got stopped by the young man. 2 of them received a dirt blanket permanently and the other was shot after he pointed his gun at the young man. All 3 were career criminals and the one who lived, told the Jury that he did indeed, point his gun at Rittenhouse first. So get all your facts straight and know what your talking about before you spout off on the subject without the (FACTS).
(4)
Reply
(0)
1SG Dennis Hicks
1SG Dennis Hicks
5 d
Innocent is Innocent not a trade and pick a crime to convict an innocent young man on, He was tried and found innocent by a jury of his peers, it never should have gone to court but politics and agenda have their say. I can see you didn't watch the trial or actually see the evidence from what you posted. Bot to love folks who don't invest the time too watch what they comment on. Blaming everyone but the criminals that got shot shows you what stage this Nation is in and its a sad thing.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Owner/Operator
18
18
0
Not guilty - self defense.
(18)
Comment
(0)
SGT Gregory Cole
SGT Gregory Cole
6 d
SrA Michael Dowd if she didn't wear that dress she wouldnt have been forced to fornicate with that man. If that family wasn't out driving their car the drunk driver wouldn't have killed them.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSG Clyde Mills
MSG Clyde Mills
5 d
SrA Michael Dowd - The young man had every reason to be there 100%, just like I would have been. Thing is, he was there to help protect his Grandparents place as well as the car Lot. Go back to the left with your babble....
(2)
Reply
(0)
SSG Jacen Black
SSG Jacen Black
1 d
MSG Clyde Mills - So why did he run back to IL afterwards? I guess that shit didn't need anymore protecting huh?
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG Clyde Mills
MSG Clyde Mills
23 h
Duh, he lived across the line 20 miles from his Grandparents place of Business, don't you pay attention to the facts of the case. He went home to his mom's house after he got attacked and reported the shootings to the Police. Are people going to have to inform every person on this board of all th3e facts of the case, so that they get the knowledge a little bit of reading could supply them with. Or are you just ignorant of the Law and all the facts.
BTW: the definition of the word Ignorant - Means a person who does not know the TRUTH.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close