Kyle Rittenhouse won’t be charged for gun offense in Illinois: prosecutors

Only in the US. How did he even get hold of the gun? He is too young to buy one. I would say this is gross neglect by his parents.

 

If he was a "child" how come he was in possession of a long gun?

 

In my eyes he needs to be arrested. The prosecution needs him as a key witness to refute the video. Either way, everyone should want this guy found.

 

He was from out of state !!!!

 

Did you greet the intruder with open arms. I don't buy that random people walking into unknown neighborhoods armed with rifles is a norm.

 

They attacked him because he didn't belong there and was armed. Like I said try doing that yourself and see how you are treated.

You leave out my point, he went looking for trouble.

 

Go ahead and do something like that yourself

 

You don't seem credible here. You also seem remarkably ignorant of the law. Why are you hear defending the child rapist, the arsonist, and the other felony convictions the folks who attacked Rittenhouse had records of being convicted for?

 

'unarmed'

not that someone must necessarily even be armed to be a lethal threat... but to say that indicates you have no clue what even happenned there, do you?

 

Umm... the glass house you must live in....

 

You clearly have nothing to argue....go away.

 

So being armed in that area was enough of a reason to attack and try to kill a 17 year old? And your point isn't a fact, it's an assertion based on your own opinion.

 

Their blood was warm and they came at him in a life threatening manner.

 

He made them do it, obviously.
He had super powers of mind control

 

I still don't understand the desire of liberals to attack kids. It's like kids are just there for them to abuse or something. It's like there's a committee or something "deciding" stuff like "that one isn't fully indoctrinated" and that deserves to be punished or some crazy progressive fantasy future replete with reeducation camps and the like.

 

Right, he was from out of state, armed with a rifle. No one should attack anyone, but I have no tears for people that go into areas looking for trouble !!!!

 

Have bravely his internet supporters speak

 

Did they attack him first or was it the other way around?

 

I don't know. Again, my point is the man went into the area looking for trouble, period. What happens now and forward is anyone's guess.

 

Who attacked first is very important. It makes it an issue of murder vs self defense. What we do know is Kyle didn't fire the first shot until he was being chased and heard gunshots from behind him. And we know that another pointed a gun at him. One of the men who was shot raised his arms to surrender and Kyle lowered his gun. The man then went in to grab for the weapon. At what point in your opinion is Kyle allowed to defend himself? And you can argue he shouldn't have been there all you want but that doesn't change the fact that he was attacked.

 

They had a problem with him being on someone's private property that wasn't theirs?
And this made them attack?

 

So you know he was "looking for trouble" (something for which you have no evidence), but you don't know if the mob attacked him (something for which there is ample video evidence)? Interesting blind spot you've developed there.

 

What happens now it is not my business, and again, he was looking for trouble, and I haven't seen too much of the video, but how guilty or innocent he is, we will soon find out.

 

For the 100th time, he was out of state and armed with a rifle and he came into an area of unrest.

 

I believe in the castle doctrine !!!!