BangkokReady

They probably actually shaved their head to be a monk for a while for their deceased relative.

No, the covid based restrictions.

I wonder how Thai people would feel if they faced the same hurdles and risks traveling abroad as foreign people do to come to Thailand currently. They would probably cry "racism".

I wouldn't try to kill any of them, so I'd probably be ok. Also, would they be there just to protect property from rioters and looters like Rittenhouse? Because then wouldn't I surely be safer with them there?

Therefore people can try to kill him? And if he stops them from killing him he's the bad guy? Theres certainly a nutter somewhere around here.

I'm just pointing out that the evidence shows that he acted in self defense and everything you say is ridiculous and made up. The fact that you respond with "he's bad and you're supporting him" speaks volumes about your argument. If he was the aggressor, show some evidence instead of just making a load of wild and unsubstantiated claims.

So, just to confirm, you don't have any evidence, just what the lawyer claims? That isn't evidence, I'm afraid. You need to show the evidence, not just say "the lawyer said...". Saying "this video shows Rittenhouse..." is not the same as someone taking the stand and giving false evidence.

So there's a lawyer claiming that a video shows Rittenhouse pointing a gun at people before they attack him, and that claim is enough for you? Do you have the evidence or not?

That's just what the lawyers said. Do you have any actual evidence?

I've seen no evidence of any pointing of the gun before the attacking began. There is no justification for them attacking him. There was no threat from him. There was no reason to believe he would shoot anyone. The people shot were the aggressors. All the evidence supports this.

He didn't put himself in that situation. The nutters that decided to attack him did. That's hilarious. Luckily we all know the truth. Everyone here can see the evidence. Multiple videos show self defence.

If you had a rifle and people were chasing you, and said they were going to kill you, and they tried to take the rifle from you, you would just let them? This isn't the gotcha that you think it is. He shot the guy that was trying to kill him, one of the four bullets which he fired in .7 seconds happened to enter his back. It doesn't mean anything. You're trying to make it sound like he snuck up on the guy and shot him in the back in some sort of ambush. This isn't what happened. Yes, you are. Try to stick to the facts. If you say something that can be immediately proven false by the evidence, you're just wasting everybody's time.

What are you talking about? The guy was trying to take his gun from him for no reason. He fired four shots in .7 seconds and one entered his back. You're trying to make it sound like he shot him in the back deliberately, which is not the case. If you only have lies, why bother? The facts are available to everyone. People aren't so stupid.

Everyone but you is sticking to facts. Two out of three were armed. And you can shoot unarmed people anyway, if they are trying to kill you. I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this and keep saying things that are so wrong.

So ignore the facts? Ponder false rhetoric and ignore the evidence of our eyes? Why would any sane person do that?

He might have said that, but the evidence shows something very different.

You didn't quote the prosecutor as saying the final shot was fatal (which is what I asked). You quoted the prosecutor in calling it a kill shot, obviously the prosecutor is allowed to say something that there is no evidence for as he is making accusations. This is what happens in trial "I put it to you...". Also, the prosecutor has been extremely sketchy in terms of saying things he should not done, so you're on shaky ground there also. Wrong again. Just double checked. Got the number wrong, it was four shots in .7 seconds, but that is what was reported. Facts. Not what you want it to be, I'm afraid. Bottom line is, the language you use is not representative of what really happened. And it's obviously deliberate.

You do know that simply because you say "opinion + he was an active shooter" that doesn't make him an active shooter, right?

So that's a no. You shouldn't lie in your posts. It makes what you say seem biased and unreliable. What I mean to say is, there seems to be no evidence to suggest that the final shot fired was the shot that caused his death (and that doesn't affect the rest of this point anyway), so saying "he fired the kill shot into his back" was said by you not to make a factual claim, but to make an emotional claim (which you have no evidence for). You also use words that would be associated with hunting and deliberate killing, to try and make it sound like the killing was calculated and done not for self defense but for sport. Also, the fact that the final shot was into his back has no relevance, as he fired the shots in such a quick succession, he would have spun quickly and Rittenhouse would have not had any time to actually be making a conscious decision to fire into his back. I believe it was: threat, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang in less than a second to end the threat. What you want to make it sound like is that Rittenhouse shot the guy a number of times, with enough of an interval between shots that he essential took aim at the guy's back and deliberately and knowingly fired, which I don't believe happened. So you're not really being honest. It's the same as trying to call the people shot by Rittenhouse "victims". They're only victims if he wasn't acting in self-defense, so to want to have them referred to as victims in the court is to remove the presumption of innocence. Imagine if the prosecution wanted the people that were shot to be referred to as "those people that the defendant deliberately murdered", that's the same thing.

Did the autopsy confirm it was the final shot that killed him?

Write about something you find interesting, something you know a lot about, or something that is simply enjoyable for you to write about. Post it and then relax. Don't write things to pander to others. You don't get paid for this, so why bother?

And you track them all down and ask them what they think about corruption in Thailand?

Hopefully he will be found not-guilty. He was clearly acting in self-defense. All the evidence points towards that and most of what people are claiming here is just kind of nonsensical, irrelevant or made up. One guy having a skateboard not a gun, people "thinking" they were stopping an active shooter, the legality of the weapon, claiming photos of him carrying a gun make it look like he was planning to kill people. These are essentially opinions or feelings, not facts, and those don't relate to the trial. The bottom line is, in each situation where Rittenhouse shot someone, those people were attacking him with lethal force when he posed no danger to them and were unprovoked in doing so. In each instance, Rittenhouse had reason to believe that if he did not shoot he would die, hence it was self-defense.

How could you possibly know that? They identify themselves as illegal aliens to you just prior to moaning about corruption?

I'm pretty sure that fully vaccinated foreigners will still be treated like they automatically have covid due to being foreign.