It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse Is A Hero - and apparently his judge sees it

page: 3
105
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou
Never said he was a hero.



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 28-10-2021 by frogs453 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JIMC5499

He didn't have a right to be there. He was never asked to be there according to the building owner and the shooting occurred hours after the curfew in which at his age he was illegally on the street.


Right. Curfew, there's a joke. You are actually claiming that he violated curfew? Wow!



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Yes he was charged with that misdemeanor as well. Numerous protesters were also charged as it was an emergency order. The normal ordinance is still for people under 18.

He violated a law. Whether you think it's a joke or not.

edit on 28-10-2021 by frogs453 because: Add



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JIMC5499

Yes he was charged with that misdemeanor as well. Numerous protesters were also charged as it was an emergency order. The normal ordinance is still for people under 18.

He violated a law. Whether you think it's a joke or not.


So he was charged. Big deal. Less than a parking ticket. I doubt the curfew law would stand if it was challenged. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Self-defense is self-defense. Once he was there and was attacked that's the only thing that counts.



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Sure challenge it. On what standing I'm not sure. My response to you was regarding the right to be there. He was there illegally with an illegal firearm. He was breaking the law to be there he did not have a right to be there.



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453

Were all the people about to kill him legally there then?



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I don’t care. If you believe he should have laid there and been killed because he violated curfew or was holding a rifle you are a pice of crap that need some more of what he dealt out. Write him a ticket for curfew violations and charge him a dollar for it and shake his hand for taking out the trash.

If you ever find yourself on a jury like this for something similar then do the patriotic thing and vote not guilty.



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzled2

Never said they were. What does that have to do with Kyle breaking the law in the first place. Do their crimes negate his crimes? Is that how determining a
"Hero" works? Well, this being a young white boy and all, it's ok to break a few not so important laws as long as those guys we don't like get what they deserve?



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: andy06shake

You're using NBC as a source? Give me a minute to quit laughing. The only reason charges are being pressed is politics, pure and simple. The law is over "ownership". Say you are 17 and I'm 21. I take you to the range and let you shoot MY pistol or rifle, I haven't violated the law. I own the weapons, you don't. I am allowing you to use them. That's where their law is vague.

I've stated that Rittenhouse made some poor choices, but, so did the clowns that got shot. Rittenhouse didn't just start blasting away, he defended himself from attack. How and why he was there isn't the issue. He has as much right to be there as they did. They attacked him and he defended himself. Plain and simple. With the video of the shootings, the only reason for this trial is political grandstanding.


Shooting someone the back is not self defense dude.



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ancientlight

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: JBurns

That child should never have had a firearm to begin with.
He is lucky the situaton didn't get worse or his rear wod have been ripped apart.


He's more of a man than you will ever be , you're what , a keyboard warrior? Does that make you feel like a bigger man now?
He faced armed violent rioters head-on with no concern with his safety. What's the best you've ever managed ? Kill some cockroaches in your place ?


Just stop. Whether we believe what he did is heroic or not, it was still dumb and he should not have been there as a 16/17 year old kid. There is a good chance that him trying to play hero ball is going to put him behind bars for the next 5-10 years, if not longer.



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70
That's quite funny. No. He should not have been there in the first place. That is what I responded to. Again, it was said it was his right be there. At 12:30 am it was not his right. You cannot argue that, so you then assume I wanted him to die? Quite a jump. If a kid with known anger issues, who was on video itching to shoot innocent people walking out of a CVS days before this incident, who breaks laws is your type of hero, then what can I say. It's a shame it happened. I certainly wouldn't consider him a hero.

edit on 28-10-2021 by frogs453 because: Grammar



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Rioters, looters and arsonists that ATTACK you. Be careful out there



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Had the looting and burning not gone on, NONE of them would have been there.
This did not happen in a vacuum.



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Type1338




Who by the way 1 was a convicted rapist, 1 was a convicted pedophile, and 1 was a convicted wife beating POS.


So they were regular Dem supporting Liberals?
Such a shame that they took the room temperature test and passed with flying colors.
It should have happened to more rioting, looting and burning assclowns.

Before any Liberal cries and moans about me saying they deserved what they got…..don’t bother, I don’t give a rat’s ass.



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Who got shot in the back?



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Who did he shoot in the back??? Everyone he shot was running at him or attacking him....



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Yes Rosenbaum the Pedo was hit in the back.

You don't know if the first of the four shots fired were aimed at his back. Things happen very quickly in such a situation It's more likely that as Pedo was grabbing the rifle as the last three shots were fired, spun as he was hit and one of the hit him in the back and not a intentional shot.

Remember a eye wittiness who was interviewing Rittenhouse gave testimony to the fact that the pedo was chaseing Rittenhouse which means he facing Rittenhouse, and Video shows just that. Rittenhouse didn't point the weapon until he heard a second shot fired and turned and pointed his weapon towards the sound of the second shot which happened to be from behind him and pedo.




edit on 28-10-2021 by TomCollin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Who got shot in the back?


I stand corrected.
But I still stand by the law. And he broke numerous laws. He may have had pure intentions tough him giving a interview outside CVS before kinda ruins his self defense case since he stated his intentions. Unfortunately for the prosecutors intent is very hard to prove without hard evidence. Generally video proof or the equivalent of needs to be provided. The video proof is there.
How do you defend his wish to shoot people before he did?



posted on Oct, 28 2021 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

There was already legal precedent for that. It is in an old law document. Let’s see here:


Article 1, Section 8
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


That explains what a militia’s job is.


Amendment 2
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


That explains how a militia can be formed and is legally necessary. DC v Heller (2008) Makes it very clear that also "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Suppression of an insurrection is already established as a lawful purpose. And certainly there was a declared purpose behind the riots attempting political change by violence, right?




top topics



 
105
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join