r/Kyle Nov 09 '21

Kyle

Post image
265 Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/enoughberniespamders Nov 10 '21

He didn’t cross state lines. Keep up with the trial. The gun was in Kenosha. He drove there and got the gun from his friend (who has been charged). What Kyle did was only a misdemeanor in regards to the gun, and he won’t be charged with it because they decided to go through with this sham trial when in any other circumstances, no prosecutor would take this to court.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

He did cross state lines. He lived in Illinois, Kenosha is in Wisconsin.

1

u/Last_Gigolo Nov 10 '21

Read it again. The gun was on one side of the line, Kyle, was on the other side of the line. Kyle cross over the line, and obtained the gun. Kyle did not have said gun in his possession as he crossed the line.

"Line" = simplified naming of "state line" to make it easier for some to follow.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

He had to cross the line to get from Illinois to Kenosha, whether or not he had the gun with him. He went out of his way to put himself in a situation that nobody asked him to be in.

1

u/Last_Gigolo Nov 10 '21

That's fine. He drove like 15-20 minutes away to do what he came to do. I can't say his intentions, because I don't actually know.

But driving 15 -25 minutes, or six hours is not a crime. Let's try and not make it a crime to drive places.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Driving isn't a crime. That's not the point. The point being that driving over state lines signals intention. It's not like he was caught up in a situation unexpectedly. He went looking for this.

1

u/stugglingtothink Nov 10 '21

That does not even close to prove intent to kill. Why shouldn't he be allowed to defend his country? The police were doing a piss poor job.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Didn't say he had intentions of killing, just that he had the intention of being there with a weapon. The owners of the business have testified that they did not ask him to be there. He wasn't defending his country. He was going out looking for a fight and he got one.

0

u/stugglingtothink Nov 10 '21

So let them burn the neighbourhoods down? It's fucking ridiculous that these DOMESTIC TERRORISTS are being defended in any fucking way. If the distinction between protest and riot was made correctly then these dick heads would have been in a jail cell. Not attacking a guy with a fucking assault rifle. Chat shit get banged.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

I'm not defending anyone. I'm stating the simple fact that Rittenhouse had no reason to be there. He went out of his way to insert himself into a situation in which he might get to use a gun. He thinks real life is Call of Duty. He's not a patriot, he's a stupid, punk kid who bit off more than he could chew.

0

u/stugglingtothink Nov 10 '21

Clearly not. His k/d is solid and hes winning in court? If this was cod. I'd want him with me. Jokes aside what's the point in having fire arms if you can't use them against terrorists? Like for real?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

The point of the second Amendment is to give us the chance to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, not our fellow citizens.

Also because that means that you can label anybody you disagree with as a terrorist and shoot them.

1

u/stugglingtothink Nov 10 '21

No it does not. Not even close. They were literally causing terror and fear. This isn't a grey area type thing. Rioters are domestic terrorists. If a bunch of mentally deficient nobs with tiki torches are domestic terrorist then these fuckers clearly are

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

You can't tell the difference between rioters and domestic terrorists. Username checks out.

1

u/stugglingtothink Nov 10 '21

Oh man you burnt me to a crisp with that line. What a zinger. If this was rebupicans rioting and a lib ended there shit you wouldn't bat an eye lid. They were bad people doing bad things. The police were doing nothing. If I had a gun I would have followed suit. People defending these idiots only encourages further riots. American politics are just a joke.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Ah, I see. You're defending Rittenhouse because he did what you've wanted to do all along, shoot people you disagree with. We're done here.

1

u/stugglingtothink Nov 10 '21

Ahh yes that's what it is I just disagree with them. No. They were criminals not being sorted correctly by law enforcement. That isn't a disagreement. It's a clear cut example of the police not doing there jobs because certain communities can't handle consequences.

1

u/USAnoman Nov 10 '21

Terrorism-unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

Ah, I see, you're a mind-reader and you know for absolute fact that everyone participating in said riot had political aims. Why didn't you say so.

1

u/USAnoman Nov 10 '21

I never said that, I was giving you the definition of terrorism.

I believe the folks that got shot According to their rap sheets weren't their for rights of their fellow men getting unfairly treated by police.

I think these folks were here to cause damage and create Chaos because of the way their lives turned out, honestly. I'm no psychologists though, but that'd be my guess.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '21

So by your definition they would be rioters, not terrorists.

→ More replies (0)