• 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!

Man Who Fired First Shots Behind Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha Has Been Charged

Has the trial already been adjudicated or are you presuming guilt before innocence? On another note, the gun never left Wisconsin and the state of Illinois has already cleared him -- no charges. Please stop with the myths and "what ifs" ..
Link?



Link here
How many people do you plan to implicate in this? In any case, nothing in that paragraph gets Rittenhouse off. The only thing that might save him from a long jail term would be his age.

Holy shit you don't even know the fundamentals of the case.....
[/QUOTE]
This from the pack who's claiming he didn't actually kill two people.


So now this is a racial thing? He'll get off because he's white and not because it was adjudicated as self-defense?
[/QUOTE]
 
Holy shit you don't even know the fundamentals of the case.....

This from the pack who's claiming he didn't actually kill two people.

Kyle Rittenhouse undeniably killed 2 individuals and injured another; however, that doesn't make him a murderer as you a presuming. On leaving the state, it's been highlighted that Rittenhouse identified the location of the firearm in the trunk of his friend's vehicle in Illinois, and Illinois is not seeking any charges because it was not easily accessible.
 
So now this is a racial thing? He'll get off because he's white and not because it was adjudicated as self-defense?
You're not seriously delusional enough to believe a black teenager who committed these acts would be out on bail and get a fair trial? I know that's part of the mythical world rightwingers live in but it won't wash here in the real one.
 
Kyle Rittenhouse undeniably killed 2 individuals and injured another; however, that doesn't make him a murderer as you a presuming. On leaving the state, it's been highlighted that Rittenhouse identified the location of the firearm in the trunk of his friend's vehicle in Illinois, and Illinois is not seeking any charges because it was not easily accessible.
How in the world do you make yourself believe that his actions in that second sentence nullify his actions in the first?
 
You're not seriously delusional enough to believe a black teenager who committed these acts would be out on bail and get a fair trial? I know that's part of the mythical world rightwingers live in but it won't wash here in the real one.

I just don't buy into that narrative .. go stand on your soapbox somewhere else. I don't see why a black teenager in the same situation (defending himself from rioters) would have any different outcome. Are you suggesting black people aren't equal with white people?
 
I just don't buy into that narrative .. go stand on your soapbox somewhere else. I don't see why a black teenager in the same situation (defending himself from rioters) would have any different outcome. Are you suggesting black people aren't equal with white people?
Of course you don't see it. You've allowed yourself to be indoctrinated to not believe facts which threaten your false beliefs.
 
Of course you don't see it. You've allowed yourself to be indoctrinated to not believe facts which threaten your false beliefs.

Did I ever tell you how much I enjoy anonymous Internet personalities attempting to tap into my inner psyche and conveying how I feel and what I believe? I'd suggest you not pursue a career in soothsaying or psionics.
 
Did I ever tell you how much I enjoy anonymous Internet personalities attempting to tap into my inner psyche and conveying how I feel and what I believe? I'd suggest you not pursue a career in soothsaying or psionics.
Have I ever thanked you for making it so easy? It's hilarious that you people think you're hard to read.
 
Have I ever thanked you for making it so easy? It's hilarious that you people think you're hard to read.

LOL easy to ready, from someone who can't read up on the facts of the case to get it right.......
 
LOL easy to ready, from someone who can't read up on the facts of the case to get it right.......
I already admitted to having lost track of the details about the weapon which you people seem to believe exonerates Rittenhouse from his murders. I'll take being my being behind on a minor fact and admitting it over your side's pathological lying about this case any day.
 
I already admitted to having lost track of the details about the weapon which you people seem to believe exonerates Rittenhouse from his murders. I'll take being my being behind on a minor fact and admitting it over your side's pathological lying about this case any day.

No one is lying about it, you think it's murder, others think it's self defense...that is what a trial is for.....which you chalk up to lying...why? Because you don't believe them, or are you that ****ing arrogant to believe that only your POV matters?
 
No one is lying about it, you think it's murder, others think it's self defense...that is what a trial is for.....which you chalk up to lying...why? Because you don't believe them, or are you that ****ing arrogant to believe that only your POV matters?
Because it's always "self defense" when one of yours murders someone.....until juries decide otherwise. Your side even went into high gear right after the vehicular murder in Charlottesville in 2017 was "self defense":
Was Driver Acting in Self-Defense?
Same thing happened when another one of yours plowed over two protesters in Seattle.
 
Last edited:
Because it's always "self defense" when one of yours murders someone.....until juries decide otherwise. Your side even went into high gear right after the vehicular murder in Charlottesville in 2017 was "self defense":
Was Driver Acting in Self-Defense?
Same thing happened when another one of yours plowed over two protesters in Seattle.

Oh **** me, do you even read the shit that you post?

Department of Memes......is the main source....****ing Department, of ****ing Memes...and that to you is...."your side"

But you have a habit of talking out your ass.....
 
Oh **** me, do you even read the shit that you post?

Department of Memes......is the main source....****ing Department, of ****ing Memes...and that to you is...."your side"

But you have a habit of talking out your ass.....
This is what that post looks like:
 
This is what that post looks like:


Of course it does to you, you are the one who thinks your POV is the only one that matters, that's the only way you can claim the "other side" is lying....
 
Of course it does to you, you are the one who thinks your POV is the only one that matters, that's the only way you can claim the "other side" is lying....
And that comment looks like this:

You have a well established pattern.
 
And that comment looks like this:

You have a well established pattern.

You are no longer even capable of talking about the subject, it's all about attacking anyone that has a different opinion. Your first problem is your major premise is false, that is anyone defending Rittenhouse is a right winger. Your other major problem is an acknowledged explicit bias, combined with an admitted ignorance of the facts of the case. Why not focus an a specific thing that you feel strongly supports your opinion that KR intentionally murdered people, and we can talk about why we don't find that convincing or offer an alternative explanation. Don't jump to the conclusion you know what my opinion is on any other case, try to stick with the one at hand.
 
Don't jump to the conclusion you know what my opinion is on any other case, try to stick with the one at hand.
You mean the way you've reached a conclusion that he's just an innocent kid despite all evidence to the contrary? You must think you're wearing some kind of invisibility cloak and we can't see who and what you really are.
 
You mean the way you've reached a conclusion that he's just an innocent kid despite all evidence to the contrary? You must think you're wearing some kind of invisibility cloak and we can't see who and what you really are.
No, it's the law that says he's innocent, until he is found guilty in a court of law. That's my base position. From there, I objectively look at the evidence, discuss particulars of the case and circumstances with other people, and see if there is enough altogether to come to the conclusion he was a murderer. So far, I have not been convinced. I leave my politics out of it. I wish both sides would. You can imagine I'm whatever boogeyman you like, but that doesn't make it so.
 
Judging from your outsized ego you may be shocked to learn that doesn't matter.
You've declared an incorrect reason I've come to my current conclusion, and why I argue this event the way I do. I was correcting you.
 
You've declared an incorrect reason I've come to my current conclusion, and why I argue this event the way I do. I was correcting you.
You either have a sense of humor or are pathetically needy. Which category would you choose?
 
You either have a sense of humor or are pathetically needy. Which category would you choose?
I see you have chosen not to engage the topic, and instead continue talking about me. I should be flattered.
 
I see you have chosen not to engage the topic, and instead continue talking about me. I should be flattered.
You flatter yourself enough as it is so you don't need to go begging for it. Let me clear at least one of the misconceptions your laboring under: I'm not bound by the legal formality of presumption of innocence any more than you are. You've chosen to ignore the facts of the case to come to your conclusion and I've chosen to accept them for mine.
 
You flatter yourself enough as it is so you don't need to go begging for it. Let me clear at least one of the misconceptions your laboring under: I'm not bound by the legal formality of presumption of innocence any more than you are. You've chosen to ignore the facts of the case to come to your conclusion and I've chosen to accept them for mine.
I don't ignore any facts. If they're new, I verify, weigh, and add it to my general knowledge of the case. If it is a "fact" that is just an emotional plea or partisan attack or red herring or straight up ignorance of the facts (as you have demonstrated) then I discard it.
 
Back
Top Bottom