Greg/Travis McMichael and Kyle Rittenhouse

[rahl]

These incidents are almost five years old. Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people in Wisconsin and seriously injured another with a rifle. The McMichael's chased Ahmaud Arbery in their truck, and on of them shot him. Both were tried. Rittenhouse was acquited, the McMichael's were convicted.

I remember thinking too many were allowing the side they're on to inform their opinions in both cases, instead of just looking at things objectively.

Then again, I could be suffering from the same problem.

I'm just curious what everyone thought was the correct pair of verdicts. I'm not really interested in discussing either case. I'm more curious about how many pick one of the "both" options.

As rittenhouse acted in self defense, and Arbery’s killers didn’t, I’m not sure why you would expect a different outcome?

 

[rahl]

Rittenhouse is a murderer who walked.

Self defense is by definition, not murder.

The McMichaels deserved their conviction.

Correct. That was actual murder.

 

[rahl]

Cool, you don't see any issue with a teenager killing people without repercussions.

Why would there be repercussions for justifiably killing someone in self defense?

Obviously the kind of viewpoint of a very balanced and very smart individual.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

but only a handful of morons on the right support both acquitted.

How quaint that you could speak for others while not saying how you would have voted, nor voting in the poll above.

 

[aociswundumho]

How quaint that you could speak for others while not saying how you would have voted, nor voting in the poll above.

Ok, I voted. Does that change anything?

 

[forn]

As rittenhouse acted in self defense, and Arbery’s killers didn’t, I’m not sure why you would expect a different outcome?

Political bias.

 

[GIJane]

Millions on the left support both convicted, but only a handful of morons on the right support both acquitted.

And THIS is exactly the reason I don't vote in high profile polls.

It is no ones ****ing business how I vote.


I didn't vote because...................see above.

 

[aociswundumho]

Political bias.

Heavy political bias. Imagine looking at the facts of the rittenhouse case and calling him a murderer - it’s absurd. But for the left, everything is political. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state. That’s why every far-left country eventually turns into an abattoir.

 

[poppopfox]

Heavy political bias. Imagine looking at the facts of the rittenhouse case and calling him a murderer - it’s absurd. But for the left, everything is political. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state. That’s why every far-left country eventually turns into an abattoir.

Heavy ignorance.

 

[rahl]

Heavy ignorance.

All the evidence presented clearly showed he was 100% justified in shooting his attackers.

 

[Cosmo]

"Three evildoers". Let's paint a picture, you're in a public space, hear a gunshot in your vicinity, and someone is shot. Is your first reaction when you seen a teenager carrying around an AR "man, he must have had to defend themselves" or is your first though "active shooter".

The only person Kyle initially shot was repeat child molester Rosenbaum who decided he'd try to graduate to murder that night by attacking him:


Kyle was then surrounded by plenty of bystanders, but didn't shoot or attempt to shoot any of them:


In fact he was surrounded by many, many potential targets in both encounters and didn't shoot or attempt to shoot any of them, with the sole exception of the three people who attacked him first.

It also just so happened that the three guys who attacked him had significant criminal pasts, including multiple child rape and felony strangulation. Bicep Man was the cleanest of the trio with just some misdemeanor(s) in his past, but lied to police about the case. It was only at trial that he basically admitted he was only shot because he tried to kill Kyle.


So no, I don't buy the confused Good Samaritan bullshit. And neither did Bicep Man based on his statements.

Because Rittenhouse after shooting the guy, called a friend saying he killed someone, and went back on his "patrol". Which I guess is what chubby rightwingers call walking around with a gun.

The second guy sees Rittenhouse walking around after he just shot someone. I'd think Rittenhouse is a danger as well and probably would have tried to keep him away from my wife.

Well, that's not what he did. Instead he attacked him.

Boom, kills a second unarmed person.

Cool story, but you skipped the part where he brutally bludgeoned Rittenhouse first (with a skateboard, so he was not unarmed).

Then the third guy hears about two people shot by this kid and goes to confront him with his own weapon.

Probably not a great idea to kill someone over hearsay you heard during a riot.

The guy never shoots his pistol but of course, Rittenhouse who decided things were so ****ing dangerous he stuck around, shoots the third guy.

Honestly, if I was hearing of someone going around shooting people I would think they are a deranged active shooter.

Who gives a shit? You can't even get the story straight even though it's been years and there's been a recorded trial + video. Don't bother making and acting on an unnecessary life and death decision with limited, unreliable information.

But, this is retard rightwing America we live in now.

That's a lot of hatred you have for America, and all because a minor was able to defend himself from a child rapist and strangler.