Kyle Rittenhouse sobbing shows what's wrong with America

LINK: Kyle Rittenhouse sobbing shows what's wrong with America (msn.com)

There is sooooo much wrong with this article that I simply do not understand. This article is filled with hate. Hate of those that dare defend themselves. Hate of the scary "right wing". And yes, even hate of white people. Because believe it or not, the author managed to somehow tie Rittenhouse with "white supremacy" and "white privilege".

No, the author doesn't say any of that straight out. But you can tell just by reading their words. It's as plain as the noses on your faces. I had thought that after the last few high-profile cases we actually had one that wasn't going to be about race. Despite this happening at a BLM protest/riot all those involved were white people. Not a single person of color was involved. So yeah, race had nothing to do with this. Yet somehow, someway, this particular leftist managed to make it about race.

It's not Kyle sobbing that shows what's wrong with America. It's this author.

 

I dunno, I think he nailed it in the last paragraph.

 

Is there anything in the article that isn't true? If we just look at the members here at PF, right wingers have defended him from day one. If he is found guilty, those same folks will martyr him. Lefties, meanwhile, question why he took that gun and 30 rounds to a BLM protest/riot. If he feared danger, why would he even go in the first place, we wonder. People were gathering to protest the police killing of a Black man - which is their right. Why were there so many white people protesting that right?

 

This is the sort of sobbing the left prefers-



Poor Juicy.

He's what's right with America, right?

 

Kyle Rittenhouse;crocodile tears,coached by his attorneys.

 

How's that?

 

Yep! Too many guns coupled with a belief that self defence not only requires a gun but that shootings are always forgiven

 

If he is found “not guilty” then it sets a precedent. Anyone can shoot another person with impunity. Murder will be legal as long as it is done with a gun

 

He went because places were being torched. He went because he wanted to help a community he was a part of. He worked in that community. He has family in that community. He may not have lived there, but he was as much a part of that community as those that lived there. But really, does it matter? He wanted to help. Isn't that what BLM is supposed to be about? Helping? You may as well ask them the same question. Is it really all that hard to believe that someone wanted to simply help? Regardless of any possible danger? Lots of people went to help that day. Both with and without guns. Why aren't their motives of going being questioned?

And yes, there is something about the article that isn't true. That this was about race.

 

I really don't know how to respond to this contrived idiocy of ...I can't even call it an argument.

 

No it will not.

It sets no precedent at all it upholds the already established right to self defense

 

It shows no such thing. Self defense shootings should be forgiven.

Self defense does not require a gun, a gun is merely the best tool for it

 

Why do you think it would NOT seta legal precedent?

 

Thank-you for making my point for me

The exact response I would expect from an American. Ask a Brit, An Aussie, A Kiwi or even a European and you are likely to get an answer that does NOT involve a firearm

 

Pretty much all of it except for playing to a specific audience that has a strong political bias.

 

The law sets the legal precedent.

 

It was as far from self defence as you can get. You do not put yourself in harms way and claim self defence - especially against unarmed people

 

Classic PTSD from a 17 year old that was attacked and forced to defend himself.

 

So you think rioters define society? Unarmed with fists, skateboards, and guns.

 

You and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't see it as helping when a citizen arrives at a protest with a gun. And if one does and ends up shooting people, they can expect to be on trial. We'll have to wait for the verdict to determine if he is guilty or not.

 

rittenhouse's first victim was a very white guy from waco texas who wasn't likely there to mourn and peacefully protest with black lives matter. one of the others had a medical bag. the other had a skateboard. did they have weapons? they had 2nd amendment rights if they did. and they were white. maybe they were "good guys with guns" attempting to stop a kid they perceived as an active shooter.

if the active shooters at parkview or sandy hook had shot the good guys with guns who were there to stop them, would that have been "self defense?

 

Third shot pointed a gun at Kyle.

 

Was not that gauge fellow who was shot in the arm convicted of some drunken offense with a firearm in the past?

How does that affect his second amendment rights?

 

Protests do not result in buildings burning, riots do. There were many of the rioters there with guns like GK that aimed at Kyle.

 

Hate is the bedrock of the left.