I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.
There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.
I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.
Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'
The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.www.newsweek.com
So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
Tulsa gabbard is a dino.I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.
There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.
I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.
Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'
The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.www.newsweek.com
So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
Hes gonna walk, but he shouldn't.The degree to which the prosecutors are willing to lie in order to salvage their shit show of a witch hunt is more than mildly astonishing.
Hes gonna walk, but he shouldn't.
Hes not guilty of murder either. Hes guilty of negligent homicide and attempted negligent homicide. In his own words, he took the weapon to defend himself from the crowds he knew were violent in days before. I am well aware of the fact that he was under no obligation to stay at the Car Source he was supposed to be protecting, but one has to ask this question....are we supposed to believe he wasn't looking for trouble when he left that location to go and put himself in the middle of that same crowd he stated he was worried about before he even got there?
Also......why are we not talking about the shit job of parenting that allowed this whole shitshow to happen in the first place. Even if you want to claim Kyle was somehow justified, his mother is most definitely responsible for those deaths, as she allowed her child to get involved in a riot carrying a weapon.
Sorry, but it’s not self defense when you pick a fight and someone takes you up on it.I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.
There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.
I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.
Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'
The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.www.newsweek.com
So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
Tulsa gabbard is a dino.
Hes gonna walk, but he shouldn't.
Hes not guilty of murder either. Hes guilty of negligent homicide and attempted negligent homicide. In his own words, he took the weapon to defend himself from the crowds he knew were violent in days before. I am well aware of the fact that he was under no obligation to stay at the Car Source he was supposed to be protecting, but one has to ask this question....are we supposed to believe he wasn't looking for trouble when he left that location to go and put himself in the middle of that same crowd he stated he was worried about before he even got there?
Also......why are we not talking about the shit job of parenting that allowed this whole shitshow to happen in the first place. Even if you want to claim Kyle was somehow justified, his mother is most definitely responsible for those deaths, as she allowed her child to get involved in a riot carrying a weapon.
Sorry, but it’s not self defense when you pick a fight and someone takes you up on it.
You have put up a good fight for unbiased facts. A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth has put on its shoes.I've been arguing it for over a year.
Sorry, but it’s not self defense when you pick a fight and someone takes you up on it.
He did yell "Friendly, Friendly, friendly" and call out "Medic". Clearly agressive behavior...What, exactly, did KR do to “pick a fight”? Did KR riot, loot, vandalize property or start fires?
Didn't he literally sprint away at the first sign of danger? As some wannabe cop chased him and tried to take his gun?I dont question his self defense, i question his need to be a wannabe cop…
Hes gonna walk, but he shouldn't.
Hes not guilty of murder either. Hes guilty of negligent homicide and attempted negligent homicide. In his own words, he took the weapon to defend himself from the crowds he knew were violent in days before. I am well aware of the fact that he was under no obligation to stay at the Car Source he was supposed to be protecting, but one has to ask this question....are we supposed to believe he wasn't looking for trouble when he left that location to go and put himself in the middle of that same crowd he stated he was worried about before he even got there?
Also......why are we not talking about the shit job of parenting that allowed this whole shitshow to happen in the first place. Even if you want to claim Kyle was somehow justified, his mother is most definitely responsible for those deaths, as she allowed her child to get involved in a riot carrying a weapon.
Well no. He went there armed knowing there would be trouble.Didn't he literally sprint away at the first sign of danger? As some wannabe cop chased him and tried to take his gun?
Legally it was pretty clearly self defense. What worries me is the amount of people morally encouraging vigilantism.
Ana Kasparian, to her credit, admitted as much.I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.
There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.
I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.
Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'
The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.www.newsweek.com
So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?
Vigilantism is not a good thing. The problem is that if certain elements of our society insist on turning a blind eye to mayhem being inflicted on a community, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone if certain other elements decide that they aren't going to take it anymore. The real question is what they do about it. Burning random property is not acceptable. Defending it, even with questionable means, is at least understandable.
The absurdity of all the name-calling in this case couldn't be more pronounced. We literally have people being accused of being white supremacists, when they went out of their way to defend a business owned by people of color. Now we can discuss whether that was a good idea, or whether they did certain things in the process that were reckless, or whether individual members of the group were out of line, but at a high level it doesn't get much more ridiculous than accusing them of anything other than bad judgment.
Knew there would be trouble? At a mostly peaceful BLM protest!? Really?Well no. He went there armed knowing there would be trouble.
None of it, which is why he will be convicted of the misdemeanor of being a minor with a dangerous weapon in public.Sorry, he bought an assault rifle illegally, went across state lines to a protest he had no business being at to play cop and protect property no one asked him to protect, got in over his head and killed two people. What part of that should we say was OK?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?