Kyle Rittenhouse says he will sue Whoopi Goldberg

Post Reply New Topic

Lol but in all seriousness Rittenhouse killed three white guys and he still became an enemy of the democrats.

I think that it is worth pointing out that without all the investigation that fed into the trial, it was not knowable that this was a case of self-defense. There were some people claiming it was, and others claiming it was not. The witnesses on the scene seemed to mostly see Rittenhouse as an aggressor and perpetrator. It isn't fair to take a conclusion that was reached after a year of investigations and weeks of trial, and try to superimpose that on minds at the time of the event. What we know now is not what was known by anyone then.

At the time of the event, what was known was that two people were dead at Rittenhouse's hands, and another injured. It was known that he had shown up to a protest fully armed with a weapon most Democrats don't believe should even be legal to carry. I don't think ulterior political motives were needed for the term "murder" to get applied at that point in time. How did the Democrats decide who to be against at that point in time? The guy with the riffle who killed two people; the natural and obvious first reaction conclusion, really.

Even following the trail, there were many people who still felt the actions had been murder. They watched the same evidence the rest of us did, and reached a different conclusion than the jury did. When people are dead, it's human nature to want to place blame and have someone pay the price. As much as I do feel reporting and politics fed into the perceptions, the divided response would likely have existed regardless. I don't see how it could not have. Rittenhouse's trail was a difficult and nuanced case, and no one will ever be held responsible for two deaths. That result can be a hard truth for people to accept, even if it was the right result.

Oh okay. But even if the perception before the trial was different, it seems it hasn't changed much since, especially since you said people still want someone to be held responsible. But in a case of self defense, though, can't these same democratic people still take comfort in the fact, that in self defense, no one has to be held responsible because it was self defense, and that's okay?

It's likely US law helped Rittenhouse's case. Had this trial been in another country he would likely be in jail rather than doing the talk show circuit talking up his chance of making millions from killing two people.

It's likely US law helped Rittenhouse's case. Had this trial been in another country he would likely be in jail rather than doing the talk show circuit talking up his chance of making millions from killing two people.

Well...they should strike a deal between Rittenhouse and celebritydom.

Have all celebs agree to not refer to Rittenhouse as a "murderer", and to start referring to him as an "idiot".

Rittenhouse was put into a position where he had to defend his life, and he just happened to have an automatic rifle in his hand to defend himself.

But he was put into that position by himself, and had put that weapon into his own hands.

He traveled several hundred miles to attend the riot (as it were the opening night of a Broadway show)and took the automatic rifle with him in order to "defend property" he didnt own, and wasnt appointed to protect. So he was a dumb young pork head looking for trouble, who found trouble. So a criminal court may not be able to convict him of murder, but a civil court might well find him guilty of negligent homicide.

Well...they should strike a deal between Rittenhouse and celebritydom.

Have all celebs agree to not refer to Rittenhouse as a "murderer", and to start referring to him as an "idiot".

Rittenhouse was put into a position where he had to defend his life, and he just happened to have an automatic rifle in his hand to defend himself.

But he was put into that position by himself, and had put that weapon into his own hands.

He traveled several hundred miles to attend the riot (as it were the opening night of a Broadway show)and took the automatic rifle with him in order to "defend property" he didnt own, and wasnt appointed to protect. So he was a dumb young pork head looking for trouble, who found trouble. So a criminal court may not be able to convict him of murder, but a civil court might well find him guilty of negligent homicide.

Rittenhouse tried to run away.
I think the real "idiots" are the people who chased after a person with a rifle.

Don't smoke chase people with high powered weapons.
Not rocket surgery.

Also the Whoopie and the rest of celebritydom shouldnt call him a "racist" because, the guy tried for killing to two White guys, wasnt obviously motivated by "racism". And we cant get into his head to know his motivation. But his idiocy is manifest for all to see.

But I think it's fine to help protect one's friends property. I don't think there has to be a law that you can only protect property that you own, and cannot help friends out as a favor.

He specifically wanted to "defend" against BLM, he's a supporter of blue lives matter so he took the position of the police in the matter of police brutality against black people. He wasn't doing anyone a favor and no business asked for his help,. What he did is called vigilanteism

Bottom line:
If people didn't destroy property, there wouldn't have been a militia.
It ain't rocket surgery.

True, but the militia did the right thing and leave. Infact the Kenosha militia behaved appropriately and did not try and escalate the situation.

Rittenhouse chose to remain to "protect property" while armed. That's still called vigilanteism last time I checked.

Whatever he did, it wasn't deemed to be illegal in a court of law.

Rittenhouse is a lot like the guys he shot. Hooligans who found a social cause to justify being punks.

Am not as obsessed with the case as some. Dont know every detail. Still-Rittenhouse ran away from a situation that - he went to great lengths to put himself into. Rittenhouse could join the Ukrainian army right now - if he likes to travel to trouble spots, and wants to play with automatic rifles. I am sorry. I should say "if he wants adventure, and wants to use his gun for a holy cause".

Or (if he is a Trump supporter) maybe he should fight on the Russian side instead.