This statement is inaccurate from beginning to end. The FACTS came out in the trial. The MSM and some public figures smeared Kyle, omitted and buried essential information essentially misrepresenting the whole situation from start to finish. This continues for that matter. Is that where this nonsense came from?

You are correct in that the "good guy" will have to live with the fact that two people forced him to defend himself and as a result they lost their lives and a third one did the same when he pulled a gun on Kyle, aiming it at his head, forcing him to take defensive action again. It is not easy dealing with the fact that you simply injure someone by shooting them - you live with it every single day. You not only live with your own actions but the actions of the others who were intending to kill you. You "what if" every single day - what if I died?, what if I was injured severely (couldn't walk, suffered a brain injury, and more)?, what would have happened if those people had never forced me to shoot them?

However, I don't think he wanted to "play hero" when he was forced to defend himself. He was there to help. He did all types of things to benefit a community that was being destroyed. And all of those thugs and criminals only worked to destroy everything - oh, yeah, and to steal things. He was a good kid. He made a decision that most young people never would have made and those who were minors there were probably there to destroy the city, the businesses, the business owners, and the people who didn't kiss their butts in their thinking. They chose to die or get injured. They could have not approached him. They could have chosen to stay at home. They could have chosen not to assault him or bring their guns. But the two who died and the one who was injured because of each of their actions, chose to go for the destruction and everything else - they were all very well acquainted with victimizing people.

We are a nation of laws and within our laws we can defend ourselves, thank God. Everyone should realize that we never want that right lost with the others we are on the verge of losing.

...killed them in self defense...

You might want to read a bit what actually happened before making comments like this.

BTW was the looting and destruction ok?

How Wisconsin'''s self-defense law ensured Kyle Rittenhouse'''s acquittal

Sort of in self-defense. This case will be tied closely to its facts. I do not see others trying to use this as a model winning on their own unique set of facts.

So,, what really happened,,, I mean you obviously have all “your” facts! BTW,, Fox fake news is not a credible news source,,,,, it’s been proven numerous times in court. You may want to read up on this before making spaces out comments!

Sounds like they nailed it! You have proven documented facts to dispute these??

[QUOTE=Cheryl Barrios;2031812]You are correct in that the "good guy" will have to live with the fact that two people forced him to defend himself and as a result they lost their lives and a third one did the same when he pulled a gun on Kyle, aiming it at his head, forcing him to take defensive action again. It is not easy dealing with the fact that you simply injure someone by shooting them - you live with it every single day. You not only live with your own actions but the actions of the others who were intending to kill you. You "what if" every single day - what if I died?, what if I was injured severely (couldn't walk, suffered a brain injury, and more)?, what would have happened if those people had never forced me to shoot them

However, I don't think he wanted to "play hero" when he was forced to defend himself. He was there to help. He did all types of things to benefit a community that was being destroyed. And all of those thugs and criminals only worked to destroy everything - oh, yeah, and to steal things. He was a good kid. He made a decision that most young people never would have made and those who were minors there were probably there to destroy the city, the businesses, the business owners, and the people who didn't kiss their butts in their thinking. They chose to die or get injured. They could have not approached him. They could have chosen to stay at home. They could have chosen not to assault him or bring their guns. But the two who died and the one who was injured because of each of their actions, chose to go for the destruction and everything else - they were all very well acquainted with victimizing people.

We are a nation of laws and within our laws we can defend ourselves, thank God. Everyone should realize that we never want that right lost with the others we are on the verge of losing.[/QUOTE

Guess what? All those what ifs Kyle might have to live with wouldn't exist if he realized he was out of his depth and stayed home. Of course, rioting is wrong. but living in a country with so called "militia" can appoint themselves as the police is third world stuff. You want to keep your rights but have no problem with armed militias? it's fine as long as they think like you I guess.

I don't remember reading what the people who were killed were destroying at the time he killed them. the first threw a plastic bag at him, the second and third got involved because they thought he was an active shooter and they wanted to prevent any more shootings. the third actually had paramedic supplies and was there to provide help....he was lucky he had a tourniquet. and he was the only one who had a gun.

yes, they were not model citizens, but Kyle didn't know that at the time. Mental health seemed to be involved in two of them.

we really don't know who initiated contact...

as to other rights we are on the verge of losing??? pray tell what are they? there seems to be concerted effort to restrict voting for groups that might not meet your criteria as being worthy. Mandates and masks are seen as affronts to people's rights instead of public health measures to end a pandemic....and if anyone here tries to express a view different from the prevailing one, they are told they can leave.

You stated a lot of your misinformation you believe in,,, but have not discredited any of the facts?? Was he 16?? Did he cross state lines?? did he carry and Assault rifle?? Did he put himself into a dangerous situation he wasn’t trained for?? You may want to wtch a REAL news outlet.

FACT: He was 17 at the time of the shooting.
FACT: You inferred that he carried the AR-15 across state lines. He did not.
FACT: He carried an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Not an "Assault" rifle.
FACT: The jury determined that he shot and killed two criminals with violent pasts in self defense.

And I'm sure that "Trumpy" comment may get you in a bit of trouble.. :1rotfl:

I am not qualified for my opinion. For me the English system has merit. As I understand it, you appear before a judge not a jury. If, you launch a case and you lose you pay the expenses of the falsely accused. The United States has far more attorneys per capita and far fewer cases as well. Cause and effect?

Police? Am I the only one to ask where were the police? As I expect they were told not to get involved. Facts? Nothing is simple. As to suits, he will be made very wealthy. There is no shortage of people who caused this one is our President and far as I know he can't be sued.

They were the only network to show the trial IN IT'S ENTIRETY....


MSNBC only showed the prosecution's closing argument, not the defense. Gee... I wonder why?

Not expired, revoked...