Trump

[Seasider78]

Clearly a lot to the story behind the headlines. However, once again, remove guns from mass ownership and this kind of thing becomes a rarity.

When it is perfectly legal for a then 17 year old to rock up to the situation with a AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle then you know the country is not even trying to help itself resolve this issue.

Removing guns from America is like asking people in the UK to surrender their mobile phones

 

[vegster]

Clearly the correct verdict had you actually watched the trial instead of listen to the media.

And it’s Kyle.

Yep ! KYLE ... sorry did not check my spellcheck.... did check facts though ... so sad that KYLE put himself in a position where he had to kill other people in order to survive being where he needn't have been.

 

[sparkie]

It seems on the surface an open and shut case of guilty.

So what was the argument that swayed the verdict ?

 

[Razzoo]

Clearly the correct verdict had you actually watched the trial instead of listen to the media.

And it’s Kyle.

He should sue all the ones who made up allegations about him that were completely unfounded too. Where is the evidence that he was a white supremacist?
Just like the Covington kid.

 

[beorhthelm]

the thing is, he wasnt charged with being a racist dickhead. as i understand it the evidence was such that self defense was reasonable legal defense, even if he did travel hundreds of miles to put himself in that place.

 

[GT49er]

In August 2020 Karl Rittenhouse drove 30 minutes with an AR assault rifle to shoot dead BLM rioters.

A near all white jury have just found him not guilty on all counts.

The jury was picked from the county of the riots. In the UK controversial/emotive trials are held elsewhere from the scene of alleged offences.

His argument was that he killed the folk in self defence.

No surprise, he’s a Trump supporter who’s always has a huge interest in law and order when the laws suit his beliefs.

Only in America.

If only ..........................

 

[drew]

It seems on the surface an open and shut case of guilty.

So what was the argument that swayed the verdict ?

Couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[NooBHA]

Couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

His defence being that he was on his way to watch " "Gunfight at the OK Coral "at the cinema.

Absolutely no way he should have walked away without being convicted of something.

There is more accountability for someone driving at 40mph in a 30 mph zone that for shooting 2 people dead. That's just madness.

 

[Acker79]

Couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Because of a judge that ruled the two people shot and killed could not be referred to as 'victims' or 'alleged victims'. He allowed 'looters' though.

 

[A1X]

So in American it’s now “knock yourself out guys, your first two kills are completely free!”

 

[Withdean11]

Absolutely no way he should have walked away without being convicted of something.

What? What should he have been convicted of?

Did you even watch the trial?

He was LEGALLY there.
He LEGALLY owned the gun.
He LEGALLY defended himself against 3 meant trying to kill him.

You can’t just pluck convictions out of the air because you don’t like it. He done nothing wrong.

 

[NooBHA]

What? What should he have been convicted of?

Did you even watch the trial?

He was LEGALLY there.
He LEGALLY owned the gun.
He LEGALLY defended himself against 3 meant trying to kill him.

You can’t just pluck convictions out of the air because you don’t like it. He done nothing wrong.

Of course he did something WRONG.

Two people wouldn't be dead otherwise.

It's not natural to take to the streets with a rifle. Well not where I come from anyhow

 

[drew]

What? What should he have been convicted of?

Did you even watch the trial?

He was LEGALLY there.
He LEGALLY owned the gun.
He LEGALLY defended himself against 3 meant trying to kill him.

You can’t just pluck convictions out of the air because you don’t like it. He done nothing wrong.

He was too young to purchase and own the firearm, it was purchased for him by a friend, Dominick Black who has been charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 causing death.

He was legally there but the argument is that he had no reason to be there. He claims he and several others were asked to defend a car lot against the rioters but the owner of the car lot denies that.

Ritterhouse also claimed on the night to be an Emergency Medical Technician which was untrue.

The fact is that if he hadn't unnecessarily got involved, the two deceased wouldn't be deceased!!

Two people are dead and you come up with the bizarre summary that 'he done nothing wrong'!!!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

He was too young to purchase and own the firearm, it was purchased for him by a friend, Dominick Black who has been charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 causing death.

He was legally there but the argument is that he had no reason to be there. He claims he and several others were asked to defend a car lot against the rioters but the owner of the car lot denies that.

Ritterhouse also claimed on the night to be an Emergency Medical Technician which was untrue.

The fact is that if he hadn't unnecessarily got involved, the two deceased wouldn't be deceased!!

Two people are dead and you come up with the bizarre summary that 'he done nothing wrong'!!!

This may or my not be the right time to note that w11 is on my little list. No idea why. Don't care. And no regrets

 

[Klaas]

He was too young to purchase and own the firearm, it was purchased for him by a friend, Dominick Black who has been charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 causing death.

He was legally there but the argument is that he had no reason to be there. He claims he and several others were asked to defend a car lot against the rioters but the owner of the car lot denies that.

Ritterhouse also claimed on the night to be an Emergency Medical Technician which was untrue.

The fact is that if he hadn't unnecessarily got involved, the two deceased wouldn't be deceased!!

Two people are dead and you come up with the bizarre summary that 'he done nothing wrong'!!!

He's a Tommy Robinson zealot, covidiot, it's hardly surprising he came up with that.

 

[Easy 10]

He was too young to purchase and own the firearm, it was purchased for him by a friend, Dominick Black who has been charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 causing death.

He was legally there but the argument is that he had no reason to be there. He claims he and several others were asked to defend a car lot against the rioters but the owner of the car lot denies that.

Ritterhouse also claimed on the night to be an Emergency Medical Technician which was untrue.

The fact is that if he hadn't unnecessarily got involved, the two deceased wouldn't be deceased!!

Two people are dead and you come up with the bizarre summary that 'he done nothing wrong'!!!

*deafening silence from [MENTION=6026]Withdean11[/MENTION] *

 

[vegster]

What? What should he have been convicted of?

Did you even watch the trial?

He was LEGALLY there.
He LEGALLY owned the gun.
He LEGALLY defended himself against 3 meant trying to kill him.

You can’t just pluck convictions out of the air because you don’t like it. He done nothing wrong.

It would be interesting to compare the responses of the British Police and legal system to that in the US had he been in the same situation here. I'm willing to bet he might well have been a victim of " Legal Killing " at the inquest had he waved a rifle about here.

 

[fruitnveg]

the thing is, he wasnt charged with being a racist dickhead. as i understand it the evidence was such that self defense was reasonable legal defense, even if he did travel hundreds of miles to put himself in that place.

he travelled 21 miles to the town he worked in and his father lived in, less than the surviving rioter who traveled 51. Also, how rasict? A white man shoots at white men trying to kill him for cleaning graffiti and putting out their pet project fires and suddenly he's a rasict?

Perhaps you guys should go over the trial and evidence before rushing to conclusions based on what you read on twitter.

 

[Hugo Rune]

He was too young to purchase and own the firearm, it was purchased for him by a friend, Dominick Black who has been charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 causing death.

He was legally there but the argument is that he had no reason to be there. He claims he and several others were asked to defend a car lot against the rioters but the owner of the car lot denies that.

Ritterhouse also claimed on the night to be an Emergency Medical Technician which was untrue.

The fact is that if he hadn't unnecessarily got involved, the two deceased wouldn't be deceased!!

Two people are dead and you come up with the bizarre summary that 'he done nothing wrong'!!!

It’s manslaughter at the very least.

Essentially, he started a small riot by parading up and down the road with his firearm.

That said, if you choose to attack a person holding an automatic rifle, you are putting your life at huge risk. Both those who died attacked him and were seemingly shot in the resultant scuffle.

 

[Razzoo]

It’s manslaughter at the very least.

Essentially, he started a small riot by parading up and down the road with his firearm.

That said, if you choose to attack a person holding an automatic rifle, you are putting your life at huge risk. Both those who died attacked him and were seemingly shot in the resultant scuffle.

He was trying to put out a fire near a petrol station, that's how he caught the attention of Rosenbaum and had the mob onto him.