Was it on purpose?

[Della]

Lmao, there’s nothing to heed either.



You don’t understand. That’s ok.


It means: Kirk is someone you would want deplatformed, so the fact that you laugh at people who haven’t heard of him will only get more and more people to look him up and read about what he says. Thereby INCREASING the reach of his platform. And while it might get some people to disagree with him , other people might start agreeing with him…so could easily be helping him gain followers with your spite.

Such a conspiracist I'm sure people like you who have never heard of him agree with him.

there’s no suggestion of a conspiracy here.

Thanks for the suggestion of who might share my views though! I’ll check him out!

I’d say there is definitely some spin going on there…

[SallyMae]

Then as I said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt of being right and I’ll give him a second chance…


Rittenhouse didn’t shoot protesters, he shot a child rapist trying to loot stores and two people that tried to harm him after the child rapist attacked him and was shot. All of this was proven court and he was acquitted because of it. Because of the lies the actual organization of BLM kept spreading about him, people have made terroristic threats that continue today. Sounds like something Rittenhouse might want to address.

Not exactly the same thing a Kent State protesters being shot by our own National Guard.

Are you saying Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was a child molester? Or that Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was looting? I thought the reason he was acquitted was because they thought he acted in self defense. Do you think the shooting was justified on account that the guy was a child molester or because he was looting? I don't agree, and it actually makes Rittenhouse seem like MORE of a lawless vigilante to point that out. He has no authority to shoot child molesters or looters.

I’m saying he shot the guy because the guy was attacking him.


The guy that was attacking him was there to loot.

The guy that was there to loot and attacked a kid, was also a child rapist who had just gotten out of prison…

According to reports, there is no evidence that Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber were in Kenosha for the purpose of looting or that they had ever engaged in looting. No evidence of that was even presented at the trial. I don't know where you got it, but it sounds like spin, to sugarcoat the shooting by making it seem like the victims really deserved it. I think that just weakens the case that Rittenhouse did the right thing. If it was self-defense, that's fine, but then it shouldn't matter what history of the victims was.

Rittenhouse absolutely DID shoot people who were there protesting, he absolutely did NOT shoot people who were there child molesting or looting stores. But that kind of spin sure strengthens his case in the minds of low-information voters, who will imagine that Rittenhouse was just out there killing child molesters and looters and that's what matters.

[Slimshandy]

Are you saying Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was a child molester? Or that Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was looting? I thought the reason he was acquitted was because they thought he acted in self defense. Do you think the shooting was justified on account that the guy was a child molester or because he was looting? I don't agree, and it actually makes Rittenhouse seem like MORE of a lawless vigilante to point that out. He has no authority to shoot child molesters or looters.

I’m saying he shot the guy because the guy was attacking him.


The guy that was attacking him was there to loot.

The guy that was there to loot and attacked a kid, was also a child rapist who had just gotten out of prison…

According to reports, there is no evidence that Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber were in Kenosha for the purpose of looting or that they had ever engaged in looting. No evidence of that was even presented at the trial. I don't know where you got it, but it sounds like spin, to sugarcoat the shooting by making it seem like the victims really deserved it. I think that just weakens the case that Rittenhouse did the right thing. If it was self-defense, that's fine, but then it shouldn't matter what history of the victims was.

Rittenhouse absolutely DID shoot people who were there protesting, he absolutely did NOT shoot people who were there child molesting or looting stores. But that kind of spin sure strengthens his case in the minds of low-information voters, who will imagine that Rittenhouse was just out there killing child molesters and looters and that's what matters.

There was absolutely testimony that Rosenbaum was looting, trying to start fires, rioting, making death threats, witnesses described him as “hyper aggressive “…

And after all that, to a kid he told “ I’m going to kill you if I catch you alone tonight”, and for the second time that night he attempted an altercation with Rittenhouse- after Rittenhouse ran away the first time- he tried to attack and got shot by the gun he was attempting to steal.

That’s most definitely self defense.


That’s why the jury acquitted Rittenhouse.



The fact that Rosenbaum was a child rapist freshly out of prison makes most logical people think he should not be the one getting the benefit of the doubt of getting “caught up in a bad situation” more than the 17 kid would…

[Della]

I’m saying he shot the guy because the guy was attacking him.


The guy that was attacking him was there to loot.

The guy that was there to loot and attacked a kid, was also a child rapist who had just gotten out of prison…

According to reports, there is no evidence that Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber were in Kenosha for the purpose of looting or that they had ever engaged in looting. No evidence of that was even presented at the trial. I don't know where you got it, but it sounds like spin, to sugarcoat the shooting by making it seem like the victims really deserved it. I think that just weakens the case that Rittenhouse did the right thing. If it was self-defense, that's fine, but then it shouldn't matter what history of the victims was.

Rittenhouse absolutely DID shoot people who were there protesting, he absolutely did NOT shoot people who were there child molesting or looting stores. But that kind of spin sure strengthens his case in the minds of low-information voters, who will imagine that Rittenhouse was just out there killing child molesters and looters and that's what matters.

There was absolutely testimony that Rosenbaum was looting, trying to start fires, rioting, making death threats, witnesses described him as “hyper aggressive “…

And after all that, to a kid he told “ I’m going to kill you if I catch you alone tonight”, and for the second time that night he attempted an altercation with Rittenhouse- after Rittenhouse ran away the first time- he tried to attack and got shot by the gun he was attempting to steal.

That’s most definitely self defense.


That’s why the jury acquitted Rittenhouse.



The fact that Rosenbaum was a child rapist freshly out of prison makes most logical people think he should not be the one getting the benefit of the doubt of getting “caught up in a bad situation” more than the 17 kid would…

As she wrote..."that kind of spin sure strengthens his case in the minds of low-information voters, who will imagine that Rittenhouse was just out there killing child molesters and looters and that's what matters."

Fits your opinion to a T.

[WellPreserved]

Then as I said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt of being right and I’ll give him a second chance…


Rittenhouse didn’t shoot protesters, he shot a child rapist trying to loot stores and two people that tried to harm him after the child rapist attacked him and was shot. All of this was proven court and he was acquitted because of it. Because of the lies the actual organization of BLM kept spreading about him, people have made terroristic threats that continue today. Sounds like something Rittenhouse might want to address.

Not exactly the same thing a Kent State protesters being shot by our own National Guard.

Are you saying Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was a child molester? Or that Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was looting? I thought the reason he was acquitted was because they thought he acted in self defense. Do you think the shooting was justified on account that the guy was a child molester or because he was looting? I don't agree, and it actually makes Rittenhouse seem like MORE of a lawless vigilante to point that out. He has no authority to shoot child molesters or looters.

I’m saying he shot the guy because the guy was attacking him.


The guy that was attacking him was there to loot.

The guy that was there to loot and attacked a kid, was also a child rapist who had just gotten out of prison… so yes, I think the shooting was justified and the man who was shot was the worst kind of criminal in existence.

Do you think background of someone should be taken into consideration in a murder trial and based on background, not facts of a case, someone is more justified in murder than others? I mean, this was the conservative argument against George Floyd - he was a previous offender and known to use drugs so therefore, his murder by Chauvin was justified.

Personally, my opinion is that it was a correct verdict for Rittenhouse to be cleared of murder. I also think it will be a correct verdict is he is found guilty in the civil suit brought by Rosenbaum's family.

[Slimshandy]

Are you saying Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was a child molester? Or that Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was looting? I thought the reason he was acquitted was because they thought he acted in self defense. Do you think the shooting was justified on account that the guy was a child molester or because he was looting? I don't agree, and it actually makes Rittenhouse seem like MORE of a lawless vigilante to point that out. He has no authority to shoot child molesters or looters.

I’m saying he shot the guy because the guy was attacking him.


The guy that was attacking him was there to loot.

The guy that was there to loot and attacked a kid, was also a child rapist who had just gotten out of prison… so yes, I think the shooting was justified and the man who was shot was the worst kind of criminal in existence.

Do you think background of someone should be taken into consideration in a murder trial and based on background, not facts of a case, someone is more justified in murder than others? I mean, this was the conservative argument against George Floyd - he was a previous offender and known to use drugs so therefore, his murder by Chauvin was justified.

Personally, my opinion is that it was a correct verdict for Rittenhouse to be cleared of murder. I also think it will be a correct verdict is he is found guilty in the civil suit brought by Rosenbaum's family.

It would depend on whether or not that background information was relevant to establish a trackable pattern of law breaking, and mental state considering he was just released from the hospital that day on a psychiatric hold- but couldn’t get his stabilization medication because all the pharmacies were closed because of riots, and whether or not that would lead a rational person to assume they would need to utilize deadly self defense.


George Floyd wasn’t actively trying to harm someone. Rosenbaum was.

I don’t know why they would be comparable. His background wouldn’t matter.

[WellPreserved]

I’m saying he shot the guy because the guy was attacking him.


The guy that was attacking him was there to loot.

The guy that was there to loot and attacked a kid, was also a child rapist who had just gotten out of prison… so yes, I think the shooting was justified and the man who was shot was the worst kind of criminal in existence.

Do you think background of someone should be taken into consideration in a murder trial and based on background, not facts of a case, someone is more justified in murder than others? I mean, this was the conservative argument against George Floyd - he was a previous offender and known to use drugs so therefore, his murder by Chauvin was justified.

Personally, my opinion is that it was a correct verdict for Rittenhouse to be cleared of murder. I also think it will be a correct verdict is he is found guilty in the civil suit brought by Rosenbaum's family.

It would depend on whether or not that background information was relevant to establish a trackable pattern of law breaking, and mental state considering he was just released from the hospital that day on a psychiatric hold- but couldn’t get his stabilization medication because all the pharmacies were closed because of riots, and whether or not that would lead a rational person to assume they would need to utilize deadly self defense.


George Floyd wasn’t actively trying to harm someone. Rosenbaum was.

I don’t know why they would be comparable. His background wouldn’t matter.

"he was just released from the hospital that day on a psychiatric hold- but couldn’t get his stabilization medication because all the pharmacies were closed because of riots, and whether or not that would lead a rational person to assume they would need to utilize deadly self defense." That would lead someone to believe that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, which the jury did. Why Rosenbaum was in the hospital should have had no bearing and I'm not sure it did. I still think Rosebaum's family as well as Huber's family have a strong case for a civil suit which is probably why a judge last year ruled that it could proceed.

ETA: The victim's background or whether or not Rittenhouse acted in self-defense does not erase the fact that the three victims were BLM protesters.

[Slimshandy]

Do you think background of someone should be taken into consideration in a murder trial and based on background, not facts of a case, someone is more justified in murder than others? I mean, this was the conservative argument against George Floyd - he was a previous offender and known to use drugs so therefore, his murder by Chauvin was justified.

Personally, my opinion is that it was a correct verdict for Rittenhouse to be cleared of murder. I also think it will be a correct verdict is he is found guilty in the civil suit brought by Rosenbaum's family.

It would depend on whether or not that background information was relevant to establish a trackable pattern of law breaking, and mental state considering he was just released from the hospital that day on a psychiatric hold- but couldn’t get his stabilization medication because all the pharmacies were closed because of riots, and whether or not that would lead a rational person to assume they would need to utilize deadly self defense.


George Floyd wasn’t actively trying to harm someone. Rosenbaum was.

I don’t know why they would be comparable. His background wouldn’t matter.

"he was just released from the hospital that day on a psychiatric hold- but couldn’t get his stabilization medication because all the pharmacies were closed because of riots, and whether or not that would lead a rational person to assume they would need to utilize deadly self defense." That would lead someone to believe that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, which the jury did. Why Rosenbaum was in the hospital should have had no bearing and I'm not sure it did. I still think Rosebaum's family as well as Huber's family have a strong case for a civil suit which is probably why a judge last year ruled that it could proceed.

ETA: The victim's background or whether or not Rittenhouse acted in self-defense does not erase the fact that the three victims were BLM protesters.

It was mentioned in the trial because the mental state of someone who is suggested to have irrational behavior is relevant… that’s why it was mentioned in the trial.



And maybe we just have different opinions on what a protester is.

In my definition, it’s someone who supports a cause and shows up to March in solidarity with that cause.

I do not define protesters as those who show up to a protest, cause havoc, interrupt the protest so badly they create a riot and start setting fires that destroy innocent people’s homes and businesses, then attack children. They do not get the honor of being called a protester in my book.

[Slimshandy]

According to reports, there is no evidence that Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber were in Kenosha for the purpose of looting or that they had ever engaged in looting. No evidence of that was even presented at the trial. I don't know where you got it, but it sounds like spin, to sugarcoat the shooting by making it seem like the victims really deserved it. I think that just weakens the case that Rittenhouse did the right thing. If it was self-defense, that's fine, but then it shouldn't matter what history of the victims was.

Rittenhouse absolutely DID shoot people who were there protesting, he absolutely did NOT shoot people who were there child molesting or looting stores. But that kind of spin sure strengthens his case in the minds of low-information voters, who will imagine that Rittenhouse was just out there killing child molesters and looters and that's what matters.

There was absolutely testimony that Rosenbaum was looting, trying to start fires, rioting, making death threats, witnesses described him as “hyper aggressive “…

And after all that, to a kid he told “ I’m going to kill you if I catch you alone tonight”, and for the second time that night he attempted an altercation with Rittenhouse- after Rittenhouse ran away the first time- he tried to attack and got shot by the gun he was attempting to steal.

That’s most definitely self defense.


That’s why the jury acquitted Rittenhouse.



The fact that Rosenbaum was a child rapist freshly out of prison makes most logical people think he should not be the one getting the benefit of the doubt of getting “caught up in a bad situation” more than the 17 kid would…

As she wrote..."that kind of spin sure strengthens his case in the minds of low-information voters, who will imagine that Rittenhouse was just out there killing child molesters and looters and that's what matters."

Fits your opinion to a T.

Lmao, oh look! You’re trying to tell me what my opinion is again! Who could have ever guessed that would happen?

[Della]

There was absolutely testimony that Rosenbaum was looting, trying to start fires, rioting, making death threats, witnesses described him as “hyper aggressive “…

And after all that, to a kid he told “ I’m going to kill you if I catch you alone tonight”, and for the second time that night he attempted an altercation with Rittenhouse- after Rittenhouse ran away the first time- he tried to attack and got shot by the gun he was attempting to steal.

That’s most definitely self defense.


That’s why the jury acquitted Rittenhouse.



The fact that Rosenbaum was a child rapist freshly out of prison makes most logical people think he should not be the one getting the benefit of the doubt of getting “caught up in a bad situation” more than the 17 kid would…

As she wrote..."that kind of spin sure strengthens his case in the minds of low-information voters, who will imagine that Rittenhouse was just out there killing child molesters and looters and that's what matters."

Fits your opinion to a T.

Lmao, oh look! You’re trying to tell me what my opinion is again! Who could have ever guessed that would happen?

WoW