testtest

Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TidalWave said:
It absolutely is a 2A victory, especially coming in the current political atmosphere…

But - and I say this not having delved into the case - I’ll always wonder what business he had going where he did and for what purpose he thought he had.
My .02
Click to expand...
Long story short, his dad lives there and he was out helping the community by removing graffiti, putting out fires, offering medical assistance to those who needed it, etc. Basicaly doing what the cops and every other male adult should do to protect their communities (that last bit is my opinion of course). He was also hired by a local car dealer to help protect the property.
 
straydoglogic said:
Long story short, his dad lives there and he was out helping the community by removing graffiti, putting out fires, offering medical assistance to those who needed it, etc. Basicaly doing what the cops and every other male adult should do to protect their communities (that last bit is my opinion of course). He was also hired by a local car dealer to help protect the property.
Click to expand...
Thank you StrayD !
I dimly recall some of that now… but obviously leftist media hoping for a conviction would likely downplay all that just so others unable to keep up don’t get the whole story…
 
Great news for right to self defense and 2A!

This was the right outcome for the jury to come to after all the evidence was on the table.

I hope this kid gets paid from all the media and political slander he and his family endured since the incident.
 
TidalWave said:
Thank you StrayD !
I dimly recall some of that now… but obviously leftist media hoping for a conviction would likely downplay all that just so others unable to keep up don’t get the whole story…
Click to expand...
I think you'll see the leftist media start to back off a little knowing there's a good chance of lawsuits coming their way just like kid from Covington Catholic kid that got paid after all the media slander.
 
straydoglogic said:
Long story short, his dad lives there and he was out helping the community by removing graffiti, putting out fires, offering medical assistance to those who needed it, etc. Basicaly doing what the cops and every other male adult should do to protect their communities (that last bit is my opinion of course). He was also hired by a local car dealer to help protect the property.
Click to expand...
He also works there or had worked there at the time.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Should sue the current admin for slander based on the comments from our Commander in Chief
Click to expand...
That was the political point in my statement. I was just trying to keep from crossing the forum rules on politics but yes I agree I would make them all pay financially.

I wish more law abiding Americans could legally stand up for their community to keep it safe from riotous thugs and other criminals without fear of prosecution.

Sadly today the police can barely protect themselves when needed because of leftist media, politicians & big tech demonize them and turn regular American against each other.
 
I was fairly convinced he was guilty of murder for the first shooting, the guy who threw a bag at him, until the evidence showed that guy threatened him and was chasing him before that. I disagree with Kyle's decision to get involved, and I do think showing up with a rifle is a bad decision that's going to escalate situations like this, but from the evidence presented and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard I think it's the right result. I hope there is a lesson learned here: leave "defending" businesses that aren't yours to the police and the Guard. He should never have been there in the first place.
 
Snake45 said:
Apparently you've never heard of libel and defamation. Look 'em up. ;)
Click to expand...
Against who, and what are the facts that support a defamation claim? He did shoot three people, two did die, at least one was questionable based on the evidence at hand pre-trial, and he was charged with murder. It's not libel or defamation to speculate on the outcome of a trial or offer an opinion about someone's actions. He has to show that someone made a false statement OF FACT, not opinion (with few exceptions), and he has to show they 1) knew their statements of fact were false, 2) acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of their statement, or 3) negligently failed to ascertain if the statements of fact were true or false before making them. Who do you think he has a case against?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top