• 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!

Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney speaks to Tucker Carlson

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
17,282
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This was a very interesting interview. I hadn't known for sure why the thugs started chasing him in the first place, but now I know... Because he used a fire extinguisher to put out a trash can fire the "peaceful protesters" had set.


 
Cool story bro. The guy needs to watch the video he's narrating.
 
This was a very interesting interview. I hadn't known for sure why the thugs started chasing him in the first place, but now I know... Because he used a fire extinguisher to put out a trash can fire the "peaceful protesters" had set.



Suuuuuuure he did.

Not that it matters. The fact the Kyle is a minor in illegal possession of a firearm, who traveled across state lines with an assault rifle to a demonstration, and was out after curfew like that will cut against whatever laughable claim that he was looking to come in peace and not seek violence in the streets.

He brought a rifle to a demonstration, that's all we need to know. Same goes for the BLM protester that murdered a member of the MAGA caravan, who also came armed.

Two things can be true.

1. The demonstrators who were killed were vandals/vigilantes looking for violence, who helped escalate the very violence that led to their deaths by bringing weapons themselves to political demonstrations.
2. The shooters were not looking to keep the peace and no matter what defense they might come up with, there was NO excuse to bring firearms to demonstrations, and they own responsibility for the part they played in the violence, and should be absolutely charged with murder.
 
Suuuuuuure he did.

Not that it matters. The fact the Kyle is a minor in illegal possession of a firearm, who traveled across state lines with an assault rifle to a demonstration, and was out after curfew like that will cut against whatever laughable claim that he was looking to come in peace and not seek violence in the streets.

He brought a rifle to a demonstration, that's all we need to know. Same goes for the BLM protester that murdered a member of the MAGA caravan, who also came armed.

Two things can be true.

1. The demonstrators who were killed were vandals/vigilantes looking for violence, who helped escalate the very violence that led to their deaths by bringing weapons themselves to political demonstrations.
2. The shooters were not looking to keep the peace and no matter what defense they might come up with, there was NO excuse to bring firearms to demonstrations, and they own responsibility for the part they played in the violence, and should be absolutely charged with murder.

He was definitely in possession but according to his other attorney the weapon actually belonged to a friend who lives in Wisconsin. So if true there was no crossing of the state lines. Of course that also opens the door to loaning a minor a weapon who then kills two people.
 
Suuuuuuure he did.

Not that it matters. The fact the Kyle is a minor in illegal possession of a firearm, who traveled across state lines with an assault rifle to a demonstration, and was out after curfew like that will cut against whatever laughable claim that he was looking to come in peace and not seek violence in the streets.

He brought a rifle to a demonstration, that's all we need to know. Same goes for the BLM protester that murdered a member of the MAGA caravan, who also came armed.

Two things can be true.

1. The demonstrators who were killed were vandals/vigilantes looking for violence, who helped escalate the very violence that led to their deaths by bringing weapons themselves to political demonstrations.
2. The shooters were not looking to keep the peace and no matter what defense they might come up with, there was NO excuse to bring firearms to demonstrations, and they own responsibility for the part they played in the violence, and should be absolutely charged with murder.

Well, if you watched the videos then you know that the "protesters" had firearms too so what's good for the goose and all, right?
 
Well, if you watched the videos then you know that the "protesters" had firearms too so what's good for the goose and all, right?
That's what I said.

Did you not comprehend that?
 
Suuuuuuure he did.

Not that it matters. The fact the Kyle is a minor in illegal possession of a firearm, who traveled across state lines with an assault rifle to a demonstration, and was out after curfew like that will cut against whatever laughable claim that he was looking to come in peace and not seek violence in the streets.
<snipped>

What is laughable is referring to a riot as a demonstration. Burning down buildings, assaulting individuals and violence is not a demonstration.

2. The shooters were not looking to keep the peace and no matter what defense they might come up with, there was NO excuse to bring firearms to demonstrations, and they own responsibility for the part they played in the violence, and should be absolutely charged with murder.

There is no excuse to bring firearms to a demonstrations besides the fact that rioters were also carrying firearms, assaulting individuals, destroying property, setting buildings on fire, etc .. yeah .. no excuse whatsoever .. :roll:
 
What is laughable is referring to a riot as a demonstration. Burning down buildings, assaulting individuals and violence is not a demonstration.
Neither is marching in the street with assault rifles and forming a caravan with guns mounted on tripods in pick up trucks, as you throw pepper spray and paint balls around in a town you're not even a resident of.

And yes, I know the bull**** ANTIFA violence and general looting. No need to tell me. I called for the Oregon NG to be activated long ago.

There is no excuse to bring firearms to a demonstrations besides the fact ...
There's no "besides the fact".

You can't take a stand against violence in the streets by bringing violence of your own to the streets.
 
Neither is marching in the street with assault rifles and forming a caravan with guns mounted on tripods in pick up trucks, as you throw pepper spray and paint balls around in a town you're not even a resident of.

And yes, I know the bull**** ANTIFA violence and general looting. No need to tell me. I called for the Oregon NG to be activated long ago.


There's no "besides the fact".

You can't take a stand against violence in the streets by bringing violence of your own to the streets.

Portland, Oregon is not Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Kenosha, Wisconsin was not a demonstration. It was a riot based on an irrational response to a criminal that violated his restraining order, sexually assaulted his girlfriend by grabbing her by the *****, attempted to steal her vehicle and then confronting police aggressively with a weapon -- and the response was based on a 30 second video.

What violence did Rittenhouse bring other than self-defense?
 
Suuuuuuure he did.

Not that it matters. The fact the Kyle is a minor in illegal possession of a firearm

That is in dispute. Even if that is determined to be true, it does not effect in any way his right to use that weapon in self defense according to Wisconsin law.


who traveled across state lines with an assault rifle to a demonstration

That is false. The rifle was already there, given to him to use as protection.

and was out after curfew

You must be desperate to cite that one... lol


like that will cut against whatever laughable claim that he was looking to come in peace and not seek violence in the streets.

Sorry, but the evidence indicates you are wrong. He worked that day in the town as a lifeguard, then volunteered to help remove BLM graffiti off the side of a local school, then went with a friend to help a local businessman protect his property and to offer first aid to any protesters who might be injured throughout the night.

He brought a rifle to a demonstration, that's all we need to know. Same goes for the BLM protester that murdered a member of the MAGA caravan, who also came armed.

He wouldn't have had to bring a rifle if the rioters weren't allowed to pose such a dangerous threat.

The NY Times piece laid the facts out nicely and his lawyer in this interview filled in some of the missing pieces. It pretty clear based on everything I've seen that what he did was an act of self defense. Each person he shot was trying to attack him, or had attacked him.

I challenge you to point out anywhere, in any of the videos, where his actions were that of an aggressor. He attempted to flee to safety instead of engaging in a confrontation, and when that didn't work, he acted in self defense. I'm truly sorry that this doesn't work for your political agenda, but facts are facts.
 
Portland, Oregon is not Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Kenosha, Wisconsin was not a demonstration. It was a riot based on an irrational response to a criminal that violated his restraining order, sexually assaulted his girlfriend by grabbing her by the *****, attempted to steal her vehicle and then confronting police aggressively with a weapon -- and the response was based on a 30 second video.

What violence did Rittenhouse bring other than self-defense?
Are you really this out of your mind? Rittenhouse broke the law when he illegally traveled with a gun across state lines as a minor with an assault rifle.

Rittenhouse had no business being out there in a he state he wasn't a resident of, with a an assault rifle. He clearly went out there to provoke rioters. You're just bull****ting if you think anybody buys for a second that wasn't his intention.

Rittenhouse wasn't needed. The National Guard and state police were dispersing the rioters. He engaged in vigilantism and now has a murder charge for it, that will probably get plead down to manslaughter.
 
That is in dispute. Even if that is determined to be true, it does not effect in any way his right to use that weapon in self defense according to Wisconsin law.




That is false. The rifle was already there, given to him to use as protection.



You must be desperate to cite that one... lol




Sorry, but the evidence indicates you are wrong. He worked that day in the town as a lifeguard, then volunteered to help remove BLM graffiti off the side of a local school, then went with a friend to help a local businessman protect his property and to offer first aid to any protesters who might be injured throughout the night.



He wouldn't have had to bring a rifle if the rioters weren't allowed to pose such a dangerous threat.

The NY Times piece laid the facts out nicely and his lawyer in this interview filled in some of the missing pieces. It pretty clear based on everything I've seen that what he did was an act of self defense. Each person he shot was trying to attack him, or had attacked him.

I challenge you to point out anywhere, in any of the videos, where his actions were that of an aggressor. He attempted to flee to safety instead of engaging in a confrontation, and when that didn't work, he acted in self defense. I'm truly sorry that this doesn't work for your political agenda, but facts are facts.
I don't know what happened in the video before it started - as you would say if this was a police shooting. I also don't believe for a second the people he killed weren't also looking for violence out there in the streets.

See how I can concede that? Now why can't you concede that this douchebag you're embracing was obviously looking to provoke rioters by marching out in the streets in a ****ing assault weapon, in a state he wasn't even a resident of?

Actually, just save it. It's probably really ignorant.
 
Are you really this out of your mind? Rittenhouse broke the law when he illegally traveled with a gun across state lines as a minor with an assault rifle.
He didn't have an assault rifle, and it's not yet been established that the rifle he did have came from somewhere other than Wisconsin. If you have evidence that it did not originate in Wisconsin, please feel free to present it. Note that neither your assumption he brought it with him, nor a flippant question asking "where did he get it then?" is sufficient to qualify as evidence.

Rittenhouse had no business being out there in a he state he wasn't a resident of,
Why does his state of residence have an effect on a claim of self defense? Could you cite the statutory provision that establishes non-resident of Wisconsin have a lesser claim to self defense than a WI resident would have?

with a an assault rifle.
Nope.

He clearly went out there to provoke rioters.
That may be clear to you, but it's based only on your bias and not on objective facts. What objective facts do you have to show he had malice? Simply being there isn't enough. Being from out-of-state isn't enough. Having a rifle isn't enough. What else do you have?

You're just bull****ting if you think anybody buys for a second that wasn't his intention.
It may have been his intention. It may not have been his intention. You're making the claim that it was, so you are obligated to support that claim.

Rittenhouse wasn't needed.
Neither were the "protesters." But that doesn't matter anyway.

He engaged in vigilantism and now has a murder charge for it, that will probably get plead down to manslaughter.
Maybe, maybe not. If all they have are those videos, it's an uphill battle for the prosecution, as literally nothing we've seen shows Rittenhouse being the antagonist, and everything we have seen shows him trying to flee a pursuer.
 
See how I can concede that? Now why can't you concede that this douchebag you're embracing was obviously looking to provoke rioters by marching out in the streets in a ****ing assault weapon, in a state he wasn't even a resident of?

Conceding the obvious is no great feat on your part... I however, will not concede to something that there is absolutely no evidence is true. I contend that your belief is 100% politically based speculation, while my belief is based on the actual facts that are available:

* He went to Kenosha to work, not to participate in the riots as you contend.
* He volunteered to help remove graffiti after work, which there is photographic evidence proving... That is not the typical activity of a vigilante looking to start trouble.
* He took a first aid kit with him to assist injured protesters, which is documented on camera before the shootings... which is not the typical thing that someone looking to start trouble would do.
* He was interviewed and caught on camera several times prior to the incident and gave no indication he was looking for trouble and wasn't acting aggressive at all.
* The police talked with him several times and had no issue with him.
* There is no evidence, or witnesses that claim, that he ever threatened, antagonized, or did anything to provoke a conflict with anyone.
* He was chased by several thugs because he used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire that the thugs had started in a dumpster.
* He ran away from the person chasing him and did not turn and fire his weapon until someone else fired a gun behind him. Video evidence confirms this.
* After the first shooting, a mob of thugs chased him with the clear intention of inflicting harm upon him. Video evidence confirms this.
* When he attempted to run to safety toward police lines, he was struck by something and fell to the ground. Video evidence confirms this.
* After falling, he shot the 3 people who attempted to harm him and nobody else. One of which pulled a pistol on him. Video evidence confirms this.
* After that incident, he tried to surrender to police but the police ignored him and proceeded to the location of the shooting. Video evidence confirms this.
* He returned home and immediately turned himself in at his local police station.

I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell I'm conceding to something that not only there isn't any evidence of, but in fact there is evidence that contradicts the baseless narrative you are pushing.

Maybe I'm wrong and you know something that I don't, so I encourage you to provide the evidence that your belief is based upon.


.
 
That is in dispute. Even if that is determined to be true, it does not effect in any way his right to use that weapon in self defense according to Wisconsin law.

That is false. The rifle was already there, given to him to use as protection.



You must be desperate to cite that one... lol




Sorry, but the evidence indicates you are wrong. He worked that day in the town as a lifeguard, then volunteered to help remove BLM graffiti off the side of a local school, then went with a friend to help a local businessman protect his property and to offer first aid to any protesters who might be injured throughout the night.



He wouldn't have had to bring a rifle if the rioters weren't allowed to pose such a dangerous threat.

The NY Times piece laid the facts out nicely and his lawyer in this interview filled in some of the missing pieces. It pretty clear based on everything I've seen that what he did was an act of self defense. Each person he shot was trying to attack him, or had attacked him.

I challenge you to point out anywhere, in any of the videos, where his actions were that of an aggressor. He attempted to flee to safety instead of engaging in a confrontation, and when that didn't work, he acted in self defense. I'm truly sorry that this doesn't work for your political agenda, but facts are facts.

Agree totally, kid will walk free, as he should.
 
Suuuuuuure he did.

Not that it matters. The fact the Kyle is a minor in illegal possession of a firearm, who traveled across state lines with an assault rifle to a demonstration, and was out after curfew like that will cut against whatever laughable claim that he was looking to come in peace and not seek violence in the streets.

He brought a rifle to a demonstration, that's all we need to know. Same goes for the BLM protester that murdered a member of the MAGA caravan, who also came armed.

Two things can be true.

1. The demonstrators who were killed were vandals/vigilantes looking for violence, who helped escalate the very violence that led to their deaths by bringing weapons themselves to political demonstrations.
2. The shooters were not looking to keep the peace and no matter what defense they might come up with, there was NO excuse to bring firearms to demonstrations, and they own responsibility for the part they played in the violence, and should be absolutely charged with murder.

You don't have your facts straight.

It's arguable that he was possessing the firearm illegally. She did not cross state lines with it, it belongs to someone that lives in Wisconsin he borrowed it.

Seems like he brought a rifle to a riot, as did one of the people chasing him.
 
17 yr old kid a hero defending himself! The leftist deranged democrat in Portland shooting a man in cold blood is a ****ing coward!
 
Are you really this out of your mind? Rittenhouse broke the law when he illegally traveled with a gun across state lines as a minor with an assault rifle.

Rittenhouse had no business being out there in a he state he wasn't a resident of, with a an assault rifle. He clearly went out there to provoke rioters. You're just bull****ting if you think anybody buys for a second that wasn't his intention.

Rittenhouse wasn't needed. The National Guard and state police were dispersing the rioters. He engaged in vigilantism and now has a murder charge for it, that will probably get plead down to manslaughter.

Condescension aside .. the statement released by the firm representing Rittenhouse states he was working as a community lifeguard in Kenosha that day, and helped with the removal of graffiti after finishing his work (there are photos that confirm this). The statement claims the weapon was obtained in the state of Wisconsin, and did not cross state lines. Obviously, this information will be corroborated as part of the investigation to confirm legitimacy. Once confirmed, it puts the "he was there provoke rioters" claim to rest. Carrying as a minor is a misdemeanor .. he'll get a slap on the wrist. Video footage clearly demonstrates rioters acting as the aggressors .. a key component to be used in justifying the self-defense claim .. and the New York Times has completed a detailed analysis of the sequence of events that aligns with this.

From the statement

After Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha, he wanted to help clean up some of the damage, so he and a friend went to the local public high school to remove graffiti by rioters. Later in the day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence. The business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life’s work, including two nearby mechanic’s shops. Kyle and a friend armed themselves with rifles due to the deadly violence gripping Kenosha and many other American cities, and headed to the business premises. The weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines.
 
17 yr old kid a hero defending himself! The leftist deranged democrat in Portland shooting a man in cold blood is a ****ing coward!

The kid inserted himself into a situation where he knew he might have to kill people which is why he brought the gun in the first place. This was self defense, but that doesn’t make him a hero.
 
Are you really this out of your mind? Rittenhouse broke the law when he illegally traveled with a gun across state lines as a minor with an assault rifle.

Rittenhouse had no business being out there in a he state he wasn't a resident of, with a an assault rifle. He clearly went out there to provoke rioters. You're just bull****ting if you think anybody buys for a second that wasn't his intention.

Rittenhouse wasn't needed. The National Guard and state police were dispersing the rioters. He engaged in vigilantism and now has a murder charge for it, that will probably get plead down to manslaughter.

I agree that it'll get pleaded down to manslaughter, which is bull**** in and of itself because he'll be pleading to the same crime as a man who killed a pedestrian because he was texting. Both awful, but definitely not the same thing.

But such is the justice system we have.
 
What is laughable is referring to a riot as a demonstration. Burning down buildings, assaulting individuals and violence is not a demonstration.



There is no excuse to bring firearms to a demonstrations besides the fact that rioters were also carrying firearms, assaulting individuals, destroying property, setting buildings on fire, etc .. yeah .. no excuse whatsoever .. :roll:

All rioting is peaceful, no matter how much violence and killing there is, no matter how much vandalism there is, no matter how many things burn down to the ground.
 
Last edited:
You don't have your facts straight.

It's arguable that he was possessing the firearm illegally. She did not cross state lines with it, it belongs to someone that lives in Wisconsin he borrowed it.

Seems like he brought a rifle to a riot, as did one of the people chasing him.

A good point and thank you for the correction, CLAX1911. I was under the impression that he had brought his own (or his family's) AR-15 from Illinois. But it has to be asked: Who the Hell in Wisconsin gave this 17 year old a semiautomatic rifle with ammunition to just carry around Kenosha after dark unsupervised?

The term "negligent entrustment" comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
Conceding the obvious is no great feat on your part... I however, will not concede to something that there is absolutely no evidence is true. I contend that your belief is 100% politically based speculation, while my belief is based on the actual facts that are available:
* He went to Kenosha to work, not to participate in the riots as you contend.
* He volunteered to help remove graffiti after work, which there is photographic evidence proving... That is not the typical activity of a vigilante looking to start trouble.
* He took a first aid kit with him to assist injured protesters, which is documented on camera before the shootings... which is not the typical thing that someone looking to start trouble would do.
* He was interviewed and caught on camera several times prior to the incident and gave no indication he was looking for trouble and wasn't acting aggressive at all.
* The police talked with him several times and had no issue with him.
* There is no evidence, or witnesses that claim, that he ever threatened, antagonized, or did anything to provoke a conflict with anyone.
* He was chased by several thugs because he used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire that the thugs had started in a dumpster.
* He ran away from the person chasing him and did not turn and fire his weapon until someone else fired a gun behind him. Video evidence confirms this.
* After the first shooting, a mob of thugs chased him with the clear intention of inflicting harm upon him. Video evidence confirms this.
* When he attempted to run to safety toward police lines, he was struck by something and fell to the ground. Video evidence confirms this.
* After falling, he shot the 3 people who attempted to harm him and nobody else. One of which pulled a pistol on him. Video evidence confirms this.
* After that incident, he tried to surrender to police but the police ignored him and proceeded to the location of the shooting. Video evidence confirms this.
* He returned home and immediately turned himself in at his local police station.
I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell I'm conceding to something that not only there isn't any evidence of, but in fact there is evidence that contradicts the baseless narrative you are pushing.
Maybe I'm wrong and you know something that I don't, so I encourage you to provide the evidence that your belief is based upon..


Good summary of all the points I have come across now from various separate video clips.
 
I agree that it'll get pleaded down to manslaughter, which is bull**** in and of itself because he'll be pleading to the same crime as a man who killed a pedestrian because he was texting. Both awful, but definitely not the same thing.

But such is the justice system we have.

Was the pedestrian being pursued by multiple rioters yelling threatening statements (e.g. "Get his ass")?
 
There's no "besides the fact"

You can't take a stand against violence in the streets by bringing violence of your own to the streets.

False equivalency. He was not standing sgaisnt violence, but Agianst immoral violence. You fail to note the difference.

An you most assuredly can bring violence against immoral violence.
 
Back
Top Bottom