Comments by "Barry On" (@barryon8706) on "Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney shows victim was sex offender" video.

Well, there is the minor point that he shot people in self-defense. You're free to disregard that as unimportant if it doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to construct, though.
1
@AhseemCarter That's an assumption on your part. Sometimes you bring guns to defend yourself or others. If you're going to try to defend people or property against rioters and terrorists, you have reason to be armed other than "itchin' to fill someone fulla lead."
1
@jamesjacocks6221 YSelf-defense is supported by video evidence as well. Take the gun out of the equation and sure,the deceased don't get shot. But that doesn't mean it wasn't self-defense.
1
@jamesjacocks6221 Someone has little reason to take a gun to a peaceful demonstration expected to stay peaceful. This wasn't that. People have every logical reason to take a gun when they expect to face violent people.
1
@jamesjacocks6221 Rittenhouse had just as much business being there as the rioters and terrorists. More, actually, since he was defending others lives and livelihoods. Unless it can be demonstrated that he was there trying to shoot people then he is presumed innocent.
1
@jamesjacocks6221 So he's responsible for deaths caused in self-defense? Well, he killed two people, so if that's what you think being responsible for a death means, sure. If you mean he is responsible because he had no business being there and it should have been left to rioters and terrorists, then he's responsible, I suppose. If you mean that he went there to shoot people, then you're just guessing.
1
@jamesjacocks6221 What evidence do you have that he was going there to cause trouble? because he had a gun and was not sympathetic to the rioters and terrorists? So it wasn't to defend himself or others as necessary?
1
@jamesjacocks6221 I didn't say he was there to defend himself, I said he could be there, and that he could carry a gun to defend himself. And yes, I can say he was there to defend others, even if he did not have authority to do so. Why not?
1
@jamesjacocks6221 It's not vigilantism any more than any of several citizens patrols. The police weren't doing their job, so the law had already taken a far greater hit than some people trying to protect order.
1
This might be when the left starts to defend sexual assault, like they tried to defend knifing someone as just something people do.
1