• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BREAKING: 'Jump Kick Man' who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse identified as violent career criminal

Why? For defending himself? Next time you need to defend yourself from an attacker, call a Democrat BLMer criminal...

He wouldn't have had to have defended himself if he hadn't played vigilante and showed up somewhere he had no business being.

Again - you can't put yourself in harm's way and then complain when you are harmed.
 
And how do you know for a fact that in the absence of Rittenhouse, these four dipsticks would not have attacked anyone else?

Oh, OK so that's why the right is turning him into their hero. You guys are playing Minority Report in your head, and wanting to kill people for what you think may happen.

Got it.
 
He wouldn't have had to have defended himself if he hadn't played vigilante and showed up somewhere he had no business being.

Again - you can't put yourself in harm's way and then complain when you are harmed.
Other than the legions of rioter enablers, who is complaining? Rittenhouse knew what he was getting into. He brought a med kit to administer first aid (which he did), and a weapon to defend himself in case he was attacked, which unfortunately he was. The only complaining is coming from people like you who seem really upset that Rittenhouse wasn’t murdered that night.
 
They don't name him in the article. Has a long criminal history.

Its a good thing they didnt give him immunity. It would have looked really bad for the DA to go easy on a domestic abuser to prosecute a boy scout. Id like to think the people who attacked Rittenhouse would be charged with assault, but we know that wont happen. And some of them paid the price. Maybe time to move on, though Rittenhouses life is ruined.
 
Other than the legions of rioter enablers, who is complaining? Rittenhouse knew what he was getting into. He brought a med kit to administer first aid (which he did), and a weapon to defend himself in case he was attacked, which unfortunately he was. The only complaining is coming from people like you who seem really upset that Rittenhouse wasn’t murdered that night.

More emotion-based posting, and accusations that are completely without merit.
 
Other than the legions of rioter enablers, who is complaining? Rittenhouse knew what he was getting into. He brought a med kit to administer first aid (which he did), and a weapon to defend himself in case he was attacked, which unfortunately he was. The only complaining is coming from people like you who seem really upset that Rittenhouse wasn’t murdered that night.

Facts with observations, no emotions needed. I’ll leave that up to folks like yourself.

A fact is something that has to be proven with evidence. You have no evidence that anyone here wanted Rittenhouse murdered that night, or that anyone is upset that Rittenhouse wasn't murdered.

You are assuming facts not in evidence, therefore your claim is invalid.

Please keep emotion out of any future correspondence with me, because I'm not interested in how you feel - only what you can prove.
 
Would Grosskreutz be your second amendm


One of Rittenhouse's partners, an older guy and a veteran, opined that Six Foot Deep Rosenbaum may have seen Kyle as the weakest link given Kyle's baby faced look. Like a hyena Six Foot Deep Rosenbaum pounced on what he must have believed was a vulnerable cub. It was a mistake. It earned him a spot in permanent solitary confinement.
 
It would have been better if all the rioting leftwing shitheads had stayed home but you never seem to mention them.

I agree one hundred percent. They should have stayed home. But why not extend that sentiment to those, like Rittenhouse, who went to confront them? Nothing good could come from it, and nothing good did come from it.

Do you not see the utter absurdity and shallowness of making this nit wit a hero?
 
One of Rittenhouse's partners, an older guy and a veteran, opined that Six Foot Deep Rosenbaum may have seen Kyle as the weakest link given Kyle's baby faced look. Like a hyena Six Foot Deep Rosenbaum pounced on what he must have believed was a vulnerable cub. It was a mistake. It earned him a spot in permanent solitary confinement.

Anyone can cling to speculation, serve up some frosty rhetoric to support their point.

They were both idiots. It's foolish to praise either one of them. You all are just hot to praise righteous gun violence and payout a fantasy thrill.
 
Anyone can cling to speculation, serve up some frosty rhetoric to support their point.

They were both idiots. It's foolish to praise either one of them. You all are just hot to praise righteous gun violence and payout a fantasy thrill.



Six Foot Deep Rosenbaum was an idiot, degenerate and totally worthless sob. Kyle Rittenhouse is the exact opposite.
 
Six Foot Deep Rosenbaum was an idiot, degenerate and totally worthless sob. Kyle Rittenhouse is the exact opposite.

Yes, your praise righteous gun violence and fantasy is clear. It's also moronic. Kind of sad, really, to be such a cheerleader for killing.
 
A fact is something that has to be proven with evidence. You have no evidence that anyone here wanted Rittenhouse murdered that night, or that anyone is upset that Rittenhouse wasn't murdered.

You are assuming facts not in evidence, therefore your claim is invalid.

Please keep emotion out of any future correspondence with me, because I'm not interested in how you feel - only what you can prove.
No, that was the observation part.
 
I agree one hundred percent. They should have stayed home. But why not extend that sentiment to those, like Rittenhouse, who went to confront them? Nothing good could come from it, and nothing good did come from it.

Do you not see the utter absurdity and shallowness of making this nit wit a hero?
I certainly don't see him as a hero. I do see him as someone wanting to do something good in a bad situation and being prepared for the worst to happen. Before you say he was attacked because he was armed, if he was putting out a fire someone else started, they are going to go after him, armed or not.

You have no judgment for the obvious lawbreakers but endless judgment for Rittenhouse, examine where your judgments and politics intersect, they are revealing your bias has more to do with this than what is right and wrong.
 
Where did I say that rioting was OK? Show me. I'll wait.
Beside the point, endless criticism for Rittenhouse but none for the rioters.

Maybe, if you could show me where you condemned rioting....
 
Beside the point, endless criticism for Rittenhouse but none for the rioters.

Maybe, if you could show me where you condemned rioting....

I have never said rioting was OK, and never will. Those who show up to peaceful protests to stir the pot are wrong, and should be penalized, and unlike you, I don't care what side of the aisle they are on. Wrong is wrong.

Now can you differentiate the difference between rioters and peaceful protesters? Or are they all rat bastards who deserve to be tarred and feathered?
 
I have never said rioting was OK, and never will. Those who show up to peaceful protests to stir the pot are wrong, and should be penalized, and unlike you, I don't care what side of the aisle they are on. Wrong is wrong.

Now can you differentiate the difference between rioters and peaceful protesters? Or are they all rat bastards who deserve to be tarred and feathered?
You didn't state such until pressed to do so. What you keep pushing is that Rittenhouse was somehow wrong---he was within his rights. Those damaging property, attacking him, threatening him were wrong and remain such. They were not peaceful protesters and you know it, injecting that language into the conversation is a distortion and I think you are well aware of that.

Lastly, I haven't ever stated such, and that straw man is obvious and silly.
 
He wouldn't have had to have defended himself if he hadn't played vigilante and showed up somewhere he had no business being.

Again - you can't put yourself in harm's way and then complain when you are harmed.
She was wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it....right?

Victim blaming is despicable.
 
They don't name him in the article. Has a long criminal history.

BREAKING: 'Jump Kick Man' who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse identified as violent career criminal​

The mysterious "Jump Kick Man" talked about during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has been identified as a Kenosha man with an extensive criminal history spanning decades.


The Dan O'Donnell Showhas revealed that Jump Kick Man is a 40-year-old black male from Kenosha, Wisconsin. His name has been withheld "as he has not been criminally charged in connection with the Rittenhouse case," according to the radio show host.

"Sources indicate that he contacted prosecutors and offered to testify, but in exchange requested immunity from an ongoing drunk driving and domestic abuse case with which he was charged in June," according to O'Donnell.


The Disturbing Story of the Rittenhouse Case's Mysterious 'Jump Kick Man'​


"The Dan O'Donnell Show" can now report exclusively that Jump Kick Man is a 40-year-old Black male from Kenosha with an extensive criminal record who was at the time of the Rittenhouse shootings on probation following a conviction for domestic violence battery. He faced a maximum sentence of nine months in jail, but less than two months before he kicked Rittenhouse, he accepted a plea deal that netted him 12 months' probation. The following year, he violated the terms of his probation and was sentenced to seven months in jail.
Oooh.. more right-wing boogymen. First we have their "Antifa" fantasy, now, we have "Jump kick man". So scary Boo!
 
He wouldn't have had to have defended himself if he hadn't played vigilante and showed up somewhere he had no business being.

Again - you can't put yourself in harm's way and then complain when you are harmed.

He didn’t “complain” about having been attacked; he defended himself in court against a trumped up charge of murder. And he won, which fills MadLibs with deep fear that they might not always get treated with kid gloves when they riot.
 
He didn’t “complain” about having been attacked; he defended himself in court against a trumped up charge of murder. And he won, which fills MadLibs with deep fear that they might not always get treated with kid gloves when they riot.

Or the rioters bring guns too. Smart.
 
You didn't state such until pressed to do so. What you keep pushing is that Rittenhouse was somehow wrong---he was within his rights. Those damaging property, attacking him, threatening him were wrong and remain such. They were not peaceful protesters and you know it, injecting that language into the conversation is a distortion and I think you are well aware of that.

Lastly, I haven't ever stated such, and that straw man is obvious and silly.

Oh, I see. So it's OK for you to accuse me of things, but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's not.

You assuming that poor little Rittenhouse was just there for protection is a distortion, and I think YOU are well aware of that.

He was there to **** shit up. Why else would he have been there? He was a child with no property to protect.
 
Back
Top Bottom