Yes or No: Do you support Kyle Rittenhouse?

A true American patriot!

#ProGun

Absolutely

NO.

Breaks the law, sucker punches girls, cries like a wimp on the stand, gets beat up by black guys and looks like a little piggie.

Not much to admire.

I don't support him but it appears from evidence that he was defending himself.

I still think he was an arse for going there that day with a weapon.

dheu28e7 do h wrote:

I don't support him but it appears from evidence that he was defending himself.

I still think he was an arse for going there that day with a weapon.

Multiple family members of his lived there. And he brought a first aid kit. What the hell started the riot that he responded to??

From what I know, manslaughter, yes.

No

Yes.

Independent who’s voted blue last several years.

I watched every video on Twitter within hours of it happening. I then proceeded to watch the headlines of media outlets change the narrative of what happened.

Sources I considered reliable and unbiased (AP and Reuters) every outlet ran with a white supremacist mass shooting narrative when it wasn’t the case.

This along with every single media outlet pushing woke racist narratives has pushed me to vote Republican for the first time in my life, so long as it’s not trump .

The fact that this case can be so partisan when there is video evidence is beyond me.

Granted he should have never been there, nor with a rifle under the age of 18. But that’s a different argument.

jesse jackson wrote:

Yes

What do you mean when you say that you support him? What substantive action are you taking that provides him with support?

That doesn't matter. If there was a protest, riot, whatever where my family members lived I wouldn't go there with a weapon.

Jerry Maguire wrote:

Yes.

Independent who’s voted blue last several years.

I watched every video on Twitter within hours of it happening. I then proceeded to watch the headlines of media outlets change the narrative of what happened.

Sources I considered reliable and unbiased (AP and Reuters) every outlet ran with a white supremacist mass shooting narrative when it wasn’t the case.

This along with every single media outlet pushing woke racist narratives has pushed me to vote Republican for the first time in my life, so long as it’s not trump .

The fact that this case can be so partisan when there is video evidence is beyond me.

Yet you consider them unbiased? Weird.

By the way I agree, can you share some of those links saying that so I can use them in a debate I’m having with a Lib friend, thanks. I’ll need them to say Rittenhouse is a white supremacist and be from the AP or Reuters.

No.

He brought an assault rifle to a protest/riot. Nothing good was going to come of it.

I support his right to a fair and unbiased trial.

Which is probably impossible for him to have, in our current climate.

Vineyard Vines wrote:

No.

He brought an assault rifle to a protest/riot. Nothing good was going to come of it.

He was 17 at the time? I think he was a nerd who was trying to be a hero.

From what I’ve seen, he seemed to be running from at least one person chasing him. Seems based on that it was self defense.

Dumb to bring an assault rifle to a riot. I don’t support what he did, but I don’t think it was murder.

without knowing much about specifics, it seems like a huge problem if, like with george zimmerman/trayvon martin, an armed person can hunt down an unarmed person, start trouble, then shoot them and claim self-defense when they fight back

Hell yes, extremely clear-cut case of self defense.

I was taking about hypotheticals yesterday with someone, and what would be really interesting to me is if one of the victims had been black. I honestly think (similar to the George Floyd case) that you would have to again throw law out the window and sacrifice/convict the defendant to avoid the inevitable large scale rioting and looting that would occur.

I think everyone is relieved that this is not the case.

duck sauce wrote:

without knowing much about specifics, it seems like a huge problem if, like with george zimmerman/trayvon martin, an armed person can hunt down an unarmed person, start trouble, then shoot them and claim self-defense when they fight back

CNN misinformation department is present.

The specifics are what matter in a case like this, right? Why would you even comment if you don’t even know what happened?