Warhawk

I see that. You guys won't even admit that be never brought a gun across state lines...even though it's been decided in court that he did not. You guys ignore facts, it's very odd Will you admit you were wrong about that?

Well I'm telling you right now that the only thing that matters in this case is if it was self defense. Bringing up the past of the victims was for other purposes Umm and yeah sorry but if you anally rape a small child the loss of your life is less significant in my eyes. Sorry not really sorry

I'm not defending killing anybody for any reason, it's just observations made about someone who wants "cowards" fried There are however laws that say you can protect yourself from angry mobs who are running towards you, throwing you down and hitting you with objects

Still waiting for that link from warhippy but I guess I'll be here awhile won't I? Here, these are links https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/10/14/923643265/kyle-rittenhouse-accused-kenosha-killer-wont-face-gun-charges-in-illinois Additionally, there is no evidence the gun was ever physically possessed by Kyle Rittenhouse in Illinois," https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-cleared-of-gun-charges-in-illinois-gun-never-left-the-state-of-wisconsin%3f_amp=true Again I'd like to point out that Warhippy compared this case to the 9/11 hijackings that caused 2000 deaths and created chaos around the world that we still deal and live with today. Good day gentlemen

Are you aware that Rittenhouse killed two people, one was a convicted child rapist who molested boys and anally raped one of them? The other guy he killed was a multiple domestic abuse offender who also pleaded guilty of strangulation, suffocation and false imprisonment of a woman Tell me again who the cowards are and who should be "fried". Well, the real cowards got fried

The link is in the last post? Are you sure?

Share the link Ahh yes technicalities, aka the law.

He actually conveniently proved that the gun never left the state of Wisconsin if you read his link. So you're wrong about that as well, which you can admit to, right? You've actually been objectively wrong about everything you've said so far

Was he assaulted first while trying to run away?

I have no idea what you are talking about but okay. So he shot someone first before being attacked and was on the ground? That's what you are saying?

So he shot someone before getting chased, attacked, threatened, thrown to the ground and hit with an object? Quit claiming I'm someone I'm not, I've been a longtime lurker of this forum I get it, you want be banned and cancelled because you can't handle facts and different opinions.

People were burning businesses, looting and rioting. So tired of liberals claiming "peaceful protesting". You didn't answer any questions. Explain how it wasn't self defense. Was he attacked first, was he trying to run away?

Was he attacked first? If not, who did he attack and how? "Being there" isn't a form of assault Was he trying to run away? Was he thrown to the ground by a mob?

Okay then you will answer mine, right? If he was there with a gun he shouldn't of had he should be penalized for that Okay, now your turn. Explain how it wasn't self defense

I agree he shouldn't of had the gun, he should penalized accordingly for that He was there defending a city...using 9/11 hijackers as a comparison is ridiculous and quite disgusting....2000 lives lost that day wasn't it?