Never said he did. But righties seem to think that any criticism of his actions means he didn't have a right to defend himself.
Where he was legally? It may have been youthful ignorance but he had every right to be there. As he had stated if he had known he wouldn’t do it again but he was 17. Let me know when 17 year olds are world wise.
The prosecution seemed to think he didn't have the right to defend himself and argued that his actions deprived him of this right.. The jury did not. So you seem to agree with the jury. What are you arguing about then?
Rittenhouse was already there before the rioters were. So, your question is wrong. Why do you continue to ask pointless questions?
What they will do is try to get him on a civil rights violation. I guess one of our civil rights is to **** children and also attack people with skateboards.
Rittenhouse was a dumb kid who inserted himself into a violent situation. However, that does not invalidate one's right to self-preservation. He had a right to defend himself, he did, objectively to any rational observer. And a jury of his peers agreed.
What words did I say that led you to the conclusion that I have taken "great offense at any criticism" of Kyle? Point them out and I wil be happy to explain where you have mistook my words because at no point have I taken "great offense" at anything in this conversation. I am here to help.
The way this works is that cons seem unable to admit that Kyle showing up was a completely moronic thing to do without trying to excuse it by adding that he had a legal right to be there and self-defense.