lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

The jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial followed the law, which was proper. Juror's should not be influenced by media coverage, social media content, or public sentiment, but by the applicable laws and the evidence presented by both sides in court. I'm sure this event will be visited time and time again for the foreseeable future.

What I found striking in this case, was what was not examined. Who encouraged Kyle to go there with a weapon? Why did his parent(s) think it was a good idea? Why were the other armed people not attacked by protestors? Why was Kyle the only armed person to fire his weapon at protestors? What person in their right mind thinks that a 17 year old boy has the maturity handle such a situation?

I'm assuming that someone will immediately mention Military Personnel that are nearly the same age, and who go armed into situations. Here are the glaring differences;

Kyle did not have the advantage of basic training, did not have the added advantage of advanced training, did not have the supervision of NCO's and was not given any rules of engagement. Kyle was on his own.

Kyle should not have been on trial - his parent(s) should have been on trial for piss poor judgement, they're supposed to know better. Who ever arranged for the armed posse and recruited Kyle should have been on trial, for not having sense enough to know that a 17 year old was not equipped to handle such a situation. The Kenoshe PD should have been on trial, for abrogating their sworn duty. Lastly, the protestors should have been on trial for starting the violence in the first place.

Being stupid is not against the law, Kyle was EXPECTED to be stupid, it is written into the DNA of every teen aged boy on the planet. The adults in the room let that boy down....................bigly.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

You wrote the following:"What I found striking in this case, was what was not examined. Who encouraged Kyle to go there with a weapon? Why did his parent(s) think it was a good idea? Why were the other armed people not attacked by protestors? Why was Kyle the only armed person to fire his weapon at protestors? What person in their right mind thinks that a 17 year old boy has the maturity handle such a situation?"

What I find striking in this case is "what difference does it make". Kyle had the right to go and travel wherever he wanted to. I believe I had read that he went to Kenosha looking for work, but whether that is true, it makes no difference. I also believe that the parents were divorced, and he lived with his mother. But why is that even relevant? Did you always do everything your parents thought was a good idea? Was there anything inherently wrong with him travelling to another state? Why others were not attacked - who knows why, and why is it even relevant? Why does one person get mugged while another remains unmolested? As to why Kyle was the only person to fire his weapon, perhaps it was because he was the only one who was attacked, threatened to have his rifle taken away, clubbed on the head with a skateboard, and had a pistol pointed at his head. All of these things that you find striking are irrelevant.

DisenchantedBo1

I agree that the points raised are irrelevant to the actual trial. He established rational reasons for his presence and while I agree as a teen he really was way over his head, he had a right to protect the community and subsequently himself. Democrats have made it sound as if these protests are peaceful. They are not!! If you’re planning to protect against r****rs and l**ters, you smart to have a weapon. No one who has a working brain expects peaceful protests anymore. This is what the Brandon administration has brought to bear.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

*** "Being stupid is not against the law..." ***

You're right...being stupid is not against the law...you're living proof of it.

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

I am very proud of Kyle.
One person can positively make a change for
the future. Protestors/R****rs and Demonstrators should take note. Your time
has come!. The jig is up! I and all of my members involved in BlockWatchers.com,
will no longer allow marchers that carry Bricks, Bats, Flammable Liquids, or any other
instruments of violence. We will no longer wait for Police Officers to step in.
We Will Cut You Down!

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Why am I not surprised.

Rose42

They are legitimate questions. I wonder how the prosecutor would answer them

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Starting to read your commentary I quickly realized that you haven't the slightest idea what happened and what this is all about Then the last paragraph
***Being stupid is not against the law, Kyle was EXPECTED to be stupid, it is written into the DNA of every teen aged boy on the planet. The adults in the room let that boy down....................bigly.
>>>And apparently you fit right in there. But you aren't a teenager and I think he exhibited more smarts from the beginning then you did after the fact.

DisenchantedBo1

Thanks for your service. Fighting back is totally necessary. Come and take it! FJB!

rjoeholl

If it weren't for armed 17 year olds you would be speaking German or Japanese.

DisenchantedBo1

Great morning laugh! Thanks!

bylm1-Bernie

Some very good questions. I'd like to know the answers myself. However, they're not the least bit germaine to the question at hand, which is - Did he act in self defense? Those of us who watched the complete trial, as well as the 40 minute interview on Tucker Carlson last night, have come to the conclusion that he definitely did. I have no idea why the left seemingly has come down as opposed to that view, possibly because they haven't watched the entire trial. There were, in my opinion, some errors in judgment on Kyle Rittenhouse's part. I'm sure he would do things differently if given another opportunity, but we are faced with deciding what to do with the facts at hand. You don't seem interested in asking what those who were shot were doing there. Why is that? I guess burning down the city isn't important.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

And that was continually made clear by the judge. The only thing relevant was the shooting of the three victims and circumstances of that. So many think that he should have been found guilty simp0ly because they felt that he should not have been there. Of course, neither should the l**ters and arsonists. The protest was long finished by night faall when they started the l**ting and burning that they claim is "protest."

I watched a few minutes of the View yesterday. They say now that they can't go protest anymore for fear of being shot. Right! My message to them is to refrain from l**ting and burning and don't attack a person with an Ar-15 rifle. Simple as that. The View is a room full of maroons but for one who seemed to have retained some sense of justice and t***h.