hypochondriac

Hell be remembered as a murderer by simpletons who don't know what the definition of murder means or those who are politically partisan and want to believe it's true.

It's really odd that you spent about three posts badgering me because you wanted me to answer your questions, yet you are constantly avoiding mine. Why is that?

Was Kyle rittenhouse acquitted on a technicality then? You're drawing a false comparison between an obvious criminal who goes out with intent to burgle and someone like Rittenhouse who proved in court that that was not his intention. You're avoiding the question, should Kyle have "taken a beating" as suggested by the prosecution?

So should the jury have voted to convict in order for their decision to not be "shocking?" You disagree with the law not the decision of the jury that followed it. Should Kyle have "taken a beating" as suggested by the prosecution?

Hold on so the jury gave the correct decision according to the law yet it was "shocking"? Absolutely bizarre logic. Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?

Oh right I've heard of Robin diangelo or however you spell her name. I listened to an interview she gave a while ago and she seemed like a bit of a grifter to be honest and a proponent of identity politics and critical race theory which I despise so I'll pass.

The fact those who died were obvious scumbags doesn't have a bearing on the case of self defence. I already told you I have no desire to rerun the trial on this forum as I've already watched it. I explained to you already that Kyle was running away, that he had been assaulted with a weapon that was potentially deadly and that someone reaching for his gun meant that a reasonable assumption would be that his gun would have been taken from him and potentially used against him. This was all explained in great detail during the trial and I suggest you watch it so you have a proper grasp of the "facts." Since you're so keen to ask me questions, I'd be interested to know why you feel the verdict was a shocking one given the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was seeking to murder someone. Not sure if you're aware as you haven't watched it, but the prosecution actually used the line "everyone takes a beating sometimes" in closing arguments suggesting that Kyle should have refrained from shooting and taken a (potentially deadly) beating instead. Presumably you agree with this?

Who claimed it did? Watch or listen to the testimony from the trial mate rather than forming your opinions from the view or twitter.

Yes exactly. Glad we could have some semblance of a reasonable conversation after all.

Because what they are guilty of speaks to their character and its why its laughable when celebrities on twitter like Mark Ruffalo give him affectionate nicknames and lionise him. If the situation had been reversed and Rosenbaum had been in the Rittenhouse role then you can just imagine what those types of people would be saying. It's hilarious but also quite sad.

Because they were very obviously guilty. Its weird that someone would decide on guilt or innocent based on political allegiance. You can't just go out and shoot someone because you suspect them of a crime based on basically nothing. I haven't seen anything that makes me think Kyle is a psychopath or a cunt, he's a traumatised kid and a fool for doing what he did but he's been caricatured in the media by those with an agenda.

"were the aggressors in this situation".

Wow all those millions who watched the OJ trial must have been guilty of the same thing.

Like you said, it doesn't justify his actions and I wonder if his child victims feel the same way about the mitigating circumstances (spoiler alert they don't and they've spoken out following his death.) It's not completely relevant to the case, but I certainly wouldn't be shedding any tears for the death of a child abuser even if he had been a victim here which it is proven he wasn't in court.

Because it was a very interesting case and it was fascinating to watch a direct source of the case and then see it twisted beyond all recognition by celebrities on twitter. No idea what a fox news type is, you seem to have a greater grasp on fox news than I do. The trial didn't give any impression that he was a psychopath, I think the prosecutorial misconduct on this case was shocking as outlined by the judge the weekend before closing arguments and my allegiance lies with the correct verdict being delivered. In other news, the correct verdict has also been reached in the Ahmaud Arbery case. I suspect you won't be so quick to smear the victim in that case...

Right so you didn't watch the trial, don't know the details of the case yet you think the argument of self defence was a joke verdict? Listen to the testimony and the evidence presented in court, the reasons for Rittenhouse being there on the record, his actions prior to the shooting, his use of "friendly friendly, the fact he was running away, the aggressive actions of the others involved, the climate at the time etc and then try to argue that his actions weren't justified under the law. Not being funny but you've just admitted you didn't watch the trial so I'm not sure why you're asking me questions as if I hadn't done so. Your questions are answered in the trial and no objective individual would have found him guilty as proven by the unanimous verdict of the jury. You've got the legal brains of the likes of Mark Ruffalo on your side though so he's definitely a white supremacist and this has been a massive miscarriage of justice.

I didn't say it did justify it. What justified the killing was the provocation of those who were shot. The fact that the two that were killed were subsequently lionised on social media by Hollywood celebrities says an awful lot when as I previously mentioned one of them anally raped little boys.

Never watched it in my life. I watched a live feed of the trial and made up my own mind based on the facts of the case. What unbiased source did you use to form your opinion?

Is it black fragility if you have darker coloured skin and disagree with BLM? Seems like quite an offensive term tbh.

You would hope that regardless of opinions that people could try to be subjective and listen to the actual trial. Almost every one of the hot takes on twitter talking about him being obviously guilty, a white supremacist, crossing state lines with a gun etc are completely contradicted by the testimony during the trial. It's sad that so many people just read twitter and accept what it says uncritically. The Internet has largely destroyed people's ability to be objective which is a shame.

What's skin colour got to do with anything? Seems a bit racist to me.

Did you watch the trial? Because I did, I watched about 4 days in total and most of the major incidents and what you say is entirely untrue. Go and watch the trial and then try to claim that the verdict was shocking. The jury could not reasonably have reached any other verdict given the facts of the case.

Not sure what you mean by what person he is. He's actually said he supports black lives matter (which I disagree with him on) and the trial was quite illuminating about how he was putting out fires and not seeking confrontation. Obviously there's a wider issue about it being legal for young people to have guns but the fact that in this case a paedophile and a domestic abuser got killed and were the aggressors in this situation means that his shooting was justified under the law.

What the hell is white fragility?

I don't like guns and I think America is backwards for having them but if you'd watched the trial it is immediately obvious that it was self defence and that his acquittal was the correct verdict. You can argue all you like about whether it's right to have guns in the first place but this was the right outcome.