Something to keep in mind as Kyle's defenders try to rationalize his defense.

I'm seeing a lot of false labeling going on with regard to protesters of police violence stemming from George Floyd's murder. Just for perspective........

The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations,CNN, 1 September 2020).

Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020).

Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020).
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/de...violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

Are Black Lives Matter protesters peaceful or violent? Depends on whom you ask.

During the massive Black Lives Matter protests across the country in reaction to the killing of George Floyd, many demonstrators took pains to show their commitment to nonviolence. Yet, according to polls, a substantial proportion of people watching at home perceived the protests as primarily violent. Why do people disagree about this?

Our research, forthcoming in the journal Political Communication, helps explain. Our analysis finds that Americans’ political biases shape their perceptions of whether a protest is peaceful or violent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ers-peaceful-or-violent-depends-whom-you-ask/

I'm also seeing the unfounded, quite frankly bizarre assertion the "left" supports the violence that occurred at some of the protest sites. I suspect because it's necessary for conservatives to vilify the left while they demonize protesters.

It makes it a little easier to defend Kyle if you put his victims in the category of being scum, unworthy of living. It's a tried and true psychological defense mechanism explaining why during times of war the enemy is referred to by words like "gooks."

To those of you who ask why Kyle is being referred to as a vigilante, I give you the dictionary definition. "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate"

I don't think either of Kyle's victims deserves to have the taking of their lives diminished because they were protesters or because of past acts they committed. It's time to recognize doing so does nothing to advance arguments in favor of Kyle. Indeed, it makes them weaker.

 

Americans across the political spectrum said they approved of some of the more forceful responses from local and state authorities. In Morning Consult’s poll, 70 percent said they supported curfews and 66 percent backed calling in the national guard to aid city police, with large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans approving these measures.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-americans-feel-about-george-floyds-death-and-the-protests/

So much for false perceptions of the "left."

 

My favorite part is all those on the left crying about the judge being biased when he was elected by Democrats....

 

Rittenhouse gives a perfect example of when to use self-defense.

1. A man threatens to kill him, later chases him. Rittenhouse retreats. Rittenhouse only defends himself after the man grabs his gun.

2. A crowd verbally threaten to do him in. Rittenhouse runs to the police to turn himself in. On the way there, he is attacked by those who did not witness the attack. Someone jumpkicks him. Another tries to kill him with a skateboard. He shoots the man in order to stop the ongoing attack.

3. A third man comes towards him. Rittenhouse raises his rifle. The man puts his hands up. Rittenhouse lowers his rifle. The man draws a pistol. At the point the pistol is pointed at him, Rittenhouse shoots. He misses and hits the man's bicep. Rittenhouse continues his flight toward the police.

In each case, there was imminent danger to Rittenhouse. Not "someone has a weapon somewhere and might shoot me danger maybe I don't know", but imminent danger.

At no point did I demonize the attackers in this explanation. Yet, you still ignored it @Lee Atwater

Defending one's self and one's property is not a police action. It is an inherent right everyone has and the left is trying to take that right away.

 

If there are 20 rioters outside my business breaking windows, trying to loot and burn the place down, I'm not going to wait around on the cops to show up. You're getting put on a lead diet. Plain and simple...

 

Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges in the August 2020 shootings of three men by a jury of his peers....

IT IS THAT SIMPLE...

 

They're peaceful. Just ask CNN.

 

Communist News Network, Covid News Network, Constantly Negative News

 

Interesting. Exactly which leftists said that? Link, please.

 

You made one critical error. You are using WaPo as a source. The Washington Post is biased fake news, friend.

 

here it is again. People claiming the thugs that Kyle killed were protesters. They’re not protesters. Unless protesters chase people down and threaten to kill them. Is that protesting or rioting? You watch too much msnbc

 

Having absolutely no bearing on his biased rulings.

 

Huber was chasing Kyle to stop him from killing more people given that Rittenhouse was identified as an active shooter.

 

Ok, I'm missing something here, WHY did these 3 guys decide to chase after Rittenhouse?

 

Motive of the attackers doesn't matter in self-defense cases - unless you're asking for us to demonize the attackers. Even the OP has agreed that they are horrible people.

The common reason why murderers try to murder people is because they think they can.

A group of 12 random sane citizens unanimously agreed that Rittenhouse did not murder in this case. About 8 of those 12 believed Rittenhouse was guilty before the trial began based on polling of perspective jurors.

Why are you trying so hard to disagree with them?

 

Judge didn't make any biased rulings.

 

You didn't know how things work? If you disagree with a liberal on anything you are BIASED

 

Answer the question.

 

What a tyrannical way to reply to someone. Are you modeling your replies off of Stalin or Winnie the Pooh?

I did answer your question. Try to read more carefully.

 

No you didn't. WHY did these 3 guys decide to chase after Rittenhouse?

 

I guess I'll highlight it for you since you don't want to bother with reading comprehension.

 

So acting as a vigilante eh?

 

Ok so you don't know.

 

And you do? Do you perform seances?

 

Uh NO, that's why I'm asking.