Gaga Tweets About Rittenhouse Trials

[HuffsAhoy 7,433]

13 minutes ago, FameMonster01 said:

I just saw a video and there are literally 4 people attacking him

Because he was the agitator  If he was a resident of Kenosha and these people were actively trying to harm him then yes, I would believe the self-defense theory. Regardless, a 17 year old shouldn't have a weapon like that. 

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

Rittenhouse is innocent. He did nothing wrong. The verdict confirms this. He defended his own life for f*cks sake. It's not about racism and oppression. As I've asked 700 times to different people without getting a straight answer (and I know why lol) what was Kyle Rittenhouse supposed to do? Just lay down and die? 

[HuffsAhoy 7,433]

4 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

The verdict confirms this. 

The verdict doesn't confirm his innocence. It confirms the prosecution did a piss poor job painting the picture that Kyle was acting out of malice. He is guilty, despite the verdict in his case. Just like OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and George Zimmerman. All of those people are guilt of their crimes. 

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

9 minutes ago, HuffsAhoy said:

The verdict doesn't confirm his innocence. It confirms the prosecution did a piss poor job painting the picture that Kyle was acting out of malice. He is guilty, despite the verdict in his case. Just like OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and George Zimmerman. All of those people are guilt of their crimes. 

He acted in self-defense. That's not wrong neither legally nor morally. Those horrible people (one being a child molester and one being a wife beater) attacked a 17 year old and he shot them to save his own life. Like I asked, and I don't expect to get a straight answer, but what was he supposed to do? Let them kill him? It was either them or Kyle Rittenhouse who was going to lose their lives that night. 

[GovernmentGaga 446]

If you take emotion out of this entire case and look at the evidence objectively, you will not find sufficient evidence to convict, and in fact, the evidence does support the defense.

Stupidity is not a crime. Simply because this kid made what many would rightly call a stupid decision by going to Kenosha on that particular night, it does not mean that he is a domestic terrorist who was hunting BLM protestors as many media outlets would lead you to believe.

Kyle lived 20 minutes down the road from Kenosha. His father lived there. His best friend lived there. And he worked there. He did not fire upon anyone until being attacked and threatened to be killed. There is video evidence showing one of Kyle’s “victim’s” (more fitting, one of his assailants) pulling a gun on Him and pointing it at his head before Kyle fired his weapon in self defense.

This very person took the witness stand and admitted that Kyle did not shoot him until he pointed a gun at him. 

Let me make this clear. Kyle is not a hero. He made a very poor decision to involve himself (regardless of intent) with the unrest, but he is not the white supremacist domestic terrorist that the media outlets want you to believe.

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

9 minutes ago, GovernmentGaga said:

If you take emotion out of this entire case and look at the evidence objectively, you will not find sufficient evidence to convict, and in fact, the evidence does support the defense.

Stupidity is not a crime. Simply because this kid made what many would rightly call a stupid decision by going to Kenosha on that particular night, it does not mean that he is a domestic terrorist who was hunting BLM protestors as many media outlets would lead you to believe.

Kyle lived 20 minutes down the road from Kenosha. His father lived there. His best friend lived there. And he worked there. He did not fire upon anyone until being attacked and threatened to be killed. There is video evidence showing one of Kyle’s “victim’s” (more fitting, one of his assailants) pulling a gun on Him and pointing it at his head before Kyle fired his weapon in self defense.

This very person took the witness stand and admitted that Kyle did not shoot him until he pointed a gun at him. 

Let me make this clear. Kyle is not a hero. He made a very poor decision to involve himself (regardless of intent) with the unrest, but he is not the white supremacist domestic terrorist that the media outlets want you to believe.

Thank you. You put it better than I would be able to. 

And I agree he is not a hero. So far I've only seen Republicans calling him a hero. I don't agree with that. I don't think he's a hero for defending himself. I believe he did the right thing given the circumstances (even though he obviously shouldn't have been there to begin with) but he's not a hero. 

[huttont 5,312]

20 hours ago, thatfoxyfeeling said:

I don't live in America so it kinda baffles me that he had a gun at 17 years old in the first place but I just know if he wasn't white he would have received a sentence. 

If he wasn’t white, he would have been shot on site by police. It’s horrifying how people don’t see systematic racism 

[Fresco 1,688]

There is an interview with his lawyer on cnn now. He said 1,000 times with hindsight that he wouldn't have gone. That's what should have happened, he shouldn't have gone [with a loaded assault rifle to a black lives matter protest.]

 

I'll add this, if he went, he shouldn't have carried an assault rifle. He should have stayed attached to the hip to the fool that got the gun for this fool. He should have stayed with the group on the one property they were "defending". He should have removed the bullets from the gun so no-one would be killed by it. He should have known that if it was too dangerous for trained and licensed police that it was too dangerous for his immature self.

He used a gun in a fist fight and still claimed self defense. The 2 he killed were unarmed. If he had stayed with his "friends" they could have had his back and he might not have needed to use the gun. None of the police were in that area solo, he shouldn't have been either. 

There are so many things he could have done differently to avoid killing 2 people.  Once he shot someone, he became the active shooter,  in the minds of the people there and they tried to disarm him. He had no color of authority. He was a vigilante. 

The jury made their verdict based on evidence presented and laws in effect at the time. 

 There ought to be a law against bringing weapons to a gathering on public property, and also for walking on a public sidewalk/road open carrying an assault weapon.

[pachinko 10,402]

1 hour ago, ALGAYDO said:

If you purposely go into a violent/chaotic/deadly situation with an illegally-attained gun, I don’t think “self-defense” should be used as an excuse.

It’s like going into a Forrest, searching for a wild bear, finding it, hitting said bear with a bat, having it attack you, and then you kill it in “self-defense.” Terrible analogy, I know, but you get what I’m trying to convey. 

@FameMonster01 this. Learn from this. 

[A Fried Egg 8,910]

American politics is ugly.

[ALGAYDO 32,660]

1 hour ago, Queen Bitch said:

He acted in self-defense. That's not wrong neither legally nor morally. Those horrible people (one being a child molester and one being a wife beater) attacked a 17 year old and he shot them to save his own life. Like I asked, and I don't expect to get a straight answer, but what was he supposed to do? Let them kill him? It was either them or Kyle Rittenhouse who was going to lose their lives that night. 

Are you going to ignore the fact that he didn’t have a legally-obtained gun? Are you going to ignore the fact that he crossed state lines to be smack-dab in the middle of a riot? Are you going to ignore the fact that he shot at the air before people started chasing him? Are you going to ignore the fact that if he was a black man, chances are he would’ve been shot down by the police? Like, I don’t know you personally, but it kinda seems like you’re trying to push a certain narrative. Just curious. 

[ALGAYDO 32,660]

1 hour ago, FameMonster01 said:

wasn't he with the cops?

 

He came in as a “vigilante” and the cops just told him he could do whatever he wanted to do. So no, he wasn’t “with” the cops, but he did get the “ok” to do whatever he wanted to do by the cops. 

[PartySick 160,416]

20 hours ago, TSUNAMI said:

Why would 17 year old have a gun anyway? 

Do people in US get a gun by birth?

He didn't have it legally  I never did see if he was charged with illegal possession of a deadly weapon.

Idk what the laws in Wisconsin are though. I know you don't need a permit to carry a shotgun or rifle in Florida, just a handgun (yes, it's stupid). But you have to be over 21 to own a gun.

1 hour ago, FameMonster01 said:

I just saw a video and there are literally 4 people attacking him, It feels to me like self defense. (Don't get me wrong, after reading the headline I really thought that the system is again, being unfair.) But this just looks like a self defense, seeing as there were 4 other people on him, and he was completely alone.

Now of course 17 years old SHOULDN't have a gun anyways, it's all so sick and twisted

The thing that makes me disagree with the self defense thing is he took himself to that area with a rifle.

If it was a riot in his own neighborhood and people were dragging him out of his house or something then sure, shoot 'em to save yourself.

But if you knowingly go to an area of unrest with a firearm, that, to me, shows intent to use that firearm. He shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I really believe they should have tried him for manslaughter instead of first degree murder too. He didn't know those people so the "premeditated" part kinda loses weight there.

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

7 minutes ago, ALGAYDO said:

Are you going to ignore the fact that he didn’t have a legally-obtained gun? Are you going to ignore the fact that he crossed state lines to be smack-dab in the middle of a riot? Are you going to ignore the fact that he shot at the air before people started chasing him? Are you going to ignore the fact that if he was a black man, chances are he would’ve been shot down by the police? Like, I don’t know you personally, but it kinda seems like you’re trying to push a certain narrative. Just curious. 

Then charge him for owning an illegally obtained gun. That's totally fine by me. Besides a 17 year old shouldn't have access to a gun. But that still doesn't make him a murderer. I know he crossed state lines but I honestly don't know why, did we get a reason from him? I didn't know that he shot at the air. Do you mean a warning shot? Because as far I know he didn't do that. The prosecutor even asked him why didn't do a warning shot. And yes I know that this case would have been very different if Kyle Rittenhouse had been a black man, which is horrible to think about. Even if Kyle Rittenhouse was black I still would support him in this case, which I understand can be hard to believe because as you said, you don't know me personally, so you don't know my values. But it honestly wouldn't make a difference to me. And I swear I'm not one of those stupid Trumpsters trying to make Kyle Rittenhouse out to be some kind of saint. Like I said in a previous comment I don't believe he is a hero for what he did. But I believe he defended himself, which the jury agrees with. 

[Fresco 1,688]

People are bringing up that he had relatives in Kenosha. But the fact is that he lived in Illinois, not Wisconsin, not Kenosha. They had to do a formal legal extradition to get him from Illinois to Wisconsin to even stand trial.

The gun possession charge was dismissed by the judge. The jury never got to consider it because the judge thought the length of the weapon was clear. Wisconsin law doesn't think weapons longer than 16" are dangerous. 

https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge-d923d8e255d6b1f5c9c9fc5b74e691fb