A hypothetical question:

When pigs fly!

it was a racist gun humper who did it and it's the racist gun humpers who are excusing him

The prosecutor would not bring charges against a dead man.

Plus he'd have to survive the initial encounter.

with the police.

And what still bothers me is Rittenhouse provoke the first killing. The first one wasn't self-defense.

Shows Mr Child Rapist advancing on KR, video evidence shows KR retreating, witness testimony indicates he made multiple threats on his life and the lives of others, forensic evidence shows he tried to grab the rifle.

Two men, one White, one Black were engaging in a social experiment. Both were armed with an AR-15 slung across their chest on a single point harness. The area allowed open carry. Both were stopped by police.

The White man was questioned by one police officer, his AR-15 inspected to make sure a round was not chambered, and he was free to go.

The Black man was stopped by several squad cars held at gun point by a dozen police officers, and detained for several minutes while the situation was determined.

Is that everyone will say it wouldn't happen, and I don't disagree

They will not admit that it should happen, because they know the right to self defense exists.

...even though that person has no law enforcement standing?

Can you explain the difference between "self defense" and "vigilante action"?

Crossing state lines means nothing. I could travel hundreds of miles and not cross state lines, Rittenhouse never left the general area his family lived in, the towns were adjacent to each other. The distance one travels to be there and what jurisdictional lines thay may have been crossed has no bearing on a self defense claim.

All four men involved in the shootings chose to go into "harm's way" and none of the four were law enforcement officers. And just like the distance traveled, it has no bearing on a self defense claim.

The only thing that mattered is that Rittenhouse had a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. The gun could have been illegal (it wasn't), his possessing it could have been illegal (it wasn't), it could have been stupid for him to be there armed (it most definitely was) and it still would not negate his right to defend himself with lethal force if he reasonably feared for his safety.

There is video, forensic and testimony evidence that indicates the first man shot threatened Kyle, advanced on him and attempted to take his weapon. It at best establishes a reasonable threat and at worst establishes significant reasonable doubt on the murder charge.

There is video evidence of Kyle being hit with a skateboard by the second man shot while also being kicked in the head by a another man while on the ground.

The third man shot admitted Kyle did not raise his gun and shoot until after he drew and pointed a Glock pistol at him.

Which of the above three scenarios would you not personally fear for your life in?

..protesting. Somebody SAYS they fear for their life, and it's Rock and Roll time....

And nobody gets convicted.

Sounds great.

Let's get to it. I'm a "Second Amendment Liberal", and the Marine Corps says I was an "expert"... so...

Is there a reason you're dismissing the available video and forensic evidence and witness testimony? Have you not seen it or is it simply not supportive of the false narrative you're pushing?


That said, you never answered my question. Which of the three situations involved would not make you fear for your life? Reverse the politics. A big redneck MAGAT is chasing you, threatening you and trying to grab your firearm; two more knocked you to the ground kicked you in the head and bashed your head in with a skateboard; the final one draws and points his Glock at you. What do you do? Are your reasonably in fear of your safety or should you just take your beating?

We have boomeranged back to our dark past.

There is one thing we know about America: justice is not colorblind.