Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a man attacks me or attempts to rape me, and I shoot him in self-defense, you think *he* is now *my* “victim”.

No dear. Life doesn’t work that way.

I’m STILL the victim. I just chose NOT to be victimized. If I killed you because you were trying to harm me, that doesn’t mean you’re somehow magically transformed into righteousness just because you’re dead.

It just makes you a dead criminal assailant.


I’m still the victim.

The people Kyle Rittenhouse murdered were trying to rape him? That’s news to me.

Well, to be fair and factual: Rosenbaum was indeed a registered sex offender (pedophile) and Rittenhouse was indeed a minor.

I don’t have much sympathy for convicted pedophiles sorry.

Don’t vote Republican in that case. They are totally pro-pedophile.

And last time I checked, vigilantism is still illegal, plus Kyle Rotten had no idea who that was. He could have murdered anyone.

He did not murder anyone. Self defense is not a crime.

As to “he could have murdered anyone” - the same could be said about you, PP. but the fact is: he did not murder anyone, and the only 3 people he shot were all convicted criminals (2 illegally armed) who were attempting to murder a minor.

And why do you insist on injecting politics here?

DP. Self-defense is a defense to murder, it doesn't make the murder go away. If you're trying to assert that defense here for Rittenhouse.

He murdered people. They are dead and he killed them.

I guess he could have let himself be killed or seriously injured.

You act like he had no choice in the matter. He borrowed a gun and drove across state lines in search of confrontation. He sought this out. He wasn’t some hapless kid who found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. There were a bunch of reckless people there who made bad choices, and Rittenhouse was one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was no protest, lie number one. Bad judgement in taking the gun, but he seems to be the victim here.

https://abc7chicago.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-self-defense-kenosha-protest-shooting/11179928/

https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kyle-rittenhouse-attorney-releases-video-in-self-defense-claim/

These are the victims, none of them deserved to be injured or killed. Who was Rittenhouse? He was a little punk, with a big gun, who eventually would have ended up in jail sooner or later? Sadly he had to take out 3 people before that happened. And I don't care what these 3 men did, they aren't on trial, two are dead and one has experienced great pain and suffering, and may well for the rest of his life.

The victims aren't on trial. The little sociopath is a cold-blooded killer, and he deserves to have the rest of his life ruined over this. Only his mama is going to care about him in a few years, so not sure why you all are getting all riled up on this. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html

There are 3 million people in this country, in this grand scheme of things this itty bitty little nobody, is nothing, who cares if he gets locked up for the next 30 years, get him out of here, put him somewhere where he can't hurt anyone else, behind a big wall in a big cage. It's going to take him about 30 years to grow up and really think about what he did, let him go nutso in prison. The midwest is better off without him roaming free.

The people who were shot are indirectly on trial. The whole trial is about one simple question: “was Rittenhouse in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm from a situation he didn’t directly cause”

And no, simply being there with a rifle was not causing the situation. You may not like him. You may hate his ideology and politics. You may think he’s a trouble maker. But none of that matters because in this country the law is supposed to apply with equal force to all. And the law especially applies to the people society hates most. A lot of lawyers saw much of the video footage and thought it was a text book self defense claim. A lot thought it was worthy of trying him for murder. But I’d encourage everyone to be more open minded about this because there is a really decent chance that Rittenhouse is going to walk out if they court room a free man who exercised his self defense rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a man attacks me or attempts to rape me, and I shoot him in self-defense, you think *he* is now *my* “victim”.

No dear. Life doesn’t work that way.

I’m STILL the victim. I just chose NOT to be victimized. If I killed you because you were trying to harm me, that doesn’t mean you’re somehow magically transformed into righteousness just because you’re dead.

It just makes you a dead criminal assailant.


I’m still the victim.

The people Kyle Rittenhouse murdered were trying to rape him? That’s news to me.

Well, to be fair and factual: Rosenbaum was indeed a registered sex offender (pedophile) and Rittenhouse was indeed a minor.

I don’t have much sympathy for convicted pedophiles sorry.

Don’t vote Republican in that case. They are totally pro-pedophile.

And last time I checked, vigilantism is still illegal, plus Kyle Rotten had no idea who that was. He could have murdered anyone.

He did not murder anyone. Self defense is not a crime.

As to “he could have murdered anyone” - the same could be said about you, PP. but the fact is: he did not murder anyone, and the only 3 people he shot were all convicted criminals (2 illegally armed) who were attempting to murder a minor.

And why do you insist on injecting politics here?

DP. Self-defense is a defense to murder, it doesn't make the murder go away. If you're trying to assert that defense here for Rittenhouse.

He murdered people. They are dead and he killed them.

I guess he could have let himself be killed or seriously injured.

You act like he had no choice in the matter. He borrowed a gun and drove across state lines in search of confrontation. He sought this out. He wasn’t some hapless kid who found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. There were a bunch of reckless people there who made bad choices, and Rittenhouse was one of them.

And even with all they said he still had a right to self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a man attacks me or attempts to rape me, and I shoot him in self-defense, you think *he* is now *my* “victim”.

No dear. Life doesn’t work that way.

I’m STILL the victim. I just chose NOT to be victimized. If I killed you because you were trying to harm me, that doesn’t mean you’re somehow magically transformed into righteousness just because you’re dead.

It just makes you a dead criminal assailant.


I’m still the victim.

The people Kyle Rittenhouse murdered were trying to rape him? That’s news to me.

Well, to be fair and factual: Rosenbaum was indeed a registered sex offender (pedophile) and Rittenhouse was indeed a minor.

I don’t have much sympathy for convicted pedophiles sorry.

Don’t vote Republican in that case. They are totally pro-pedophile.

And last time I checked, vigilantism is still illegal, plus Kyle Rotten had no idea who that was. He could have murdered anyone.

He did not murder anyone. Self defense is not a crime.

As to “he could have murdered anyone” - the same could be said about you, PP. but the fact is: he did not murder anyone, and the only 3 people he shot were all convicted criminals (2 illegally armed) who were attempting to murder a minor.

And why do you insist on injecting politics here?

DP. Self-defense is a defense to murder, it doesn't make the murder go away. If you're trying to assert that defense here for Rittenhouse.

He murdered people. They are dead and he killed them.

I guess he could have let himself be killed or seriously injured.

Or, you know, not brought a gun. Then he wouldn't have shot anyone. And he wouldn't have been tackled by others who were trying to disarm him.

Bring the gun was a legal act.

Not for a minor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a man attacks me or attempts to rape me, and I shoot him in self-defense, you think *he* is now *my* “victim”.

No dear. Life doesn’t work that way.

I’m STILL the victim. I just chose NOT to be victimized. If I killed you because you were trying to harm me, that doesn’t mean you’re somehow magically transformed into righteousness just because you’re dead.

It just makes you a dead criminal assailant.


I’m still the victim.

The people Kyle Rittenhouse murdered were trying to rape him? That’s news to me.

Well, to be fair and factual: Rosenbaum was indeed a registered sex offender (pedophile) and Rittenhouse was indeed a minor.

I don’t have much sympathy for convicted pedophiles sorry.

Don’t vote Republican in that case. They are totally pro-pedophile.

And last time I checked, vigilantism is still illegal, plus Kyle Rotten had no idea who that was. He could have murdered anyone.

He did not murder anyone. Self defense is not a crime.

As to “he could have murdered anyone” - the same could be said about you, PP. but the fact is: he did not murder anyone, and the only 3 people he shot were all convicted criminals (2 illegally armed) who were attempting to murder a minor.

And why do you insist on injecting politics here?

DP. Self-defense is a defense to murder, it doesn't make the murder go away. If you're trying to assert that defense here for Rittenhouse.

He murdered people. They are dead and he killed them.

I guess he could have let himself be killed or seriously injured.

You act like he had no choice in the matter. He borrowed a gun and drove across state lines in search of confrontation. He sought this out. He wasn’t some hapless kid who found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. There were a bunch of reckless people there who made bad choices, and Rittenhouse was one of them.

And even with all they said he still had a right to self defense.

Do you if you just shot someone and people are trying to stop you from shooting again?

[Anonymous]

The wounded survivor’s testimony will be key. I bet he will say that they thought Rittenhouse was a mass shooter, given his age and actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a man attacks me or attempts to rape me, and I shoot him in self-defense, you think *he* is now *my* “victim”.

No dear. Life doesn’t work that way.

I’m STILL the victim. I just chose NOT to be victimized. If I killed you because you were trying to harm me, that doesn’t mean you’re somehow magically transformed into righteousness just because you’re dead.

It just makes you a dead criminal assailant.


I’m still the victim.

The people Kyle Rittenhouse murdered were trying to rape him? That’s news to me.

Well, to be fair and factual: Rosenbaum was indeed a registered sex offender (pedophile) and Rittenhouse was indeed a minor.

I don’t have much sympathy for convicted pedophiles sorry.

Don’t vote Republican in that case. They are totally pro-pedophile.

And last time I checked, vigilantism is still illegal, plus Kyle Rotten had no idea who that was. He could have murdered anyone.

He did not murder anyone. Self defense is not a crime.

As to “he could have murdered anyone” - the same could be said about you, PP. but the fact is: he did not murder anyone, and the only 3 people he shot were all convicted criminals (2 illegally armed) who were attempting to murder a minor.

And why do you insist on injecting politics here?

DP. Self-defense is a defense to murder, it doesn't make the murder go away. If you're trying to assert that defense here for Rittenhouse.

He murdered people. They are dead and he killed them.

I guess he could have let himself be killed or seriously injured.

You act like he had no choice in the matter. He borrowed a gun and drove across state lines in search of confrontation. He sought this out. He wasn’t some hapless kid who found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. There were a bunch of reckless people there who made bad choices, and Rittenhouse was one of them.

And even with all they said he still had a right to self defense.

Do you if you just shot someone and people are trying to stop you from shooting again?

Yes, the right of self defense would still be available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wounded survivor’s testimony will be key. I bet he will say that they thought Rittenhouse was a mass shooter, given his age and actions.

You mean the guy who tried to shoot Kyle? And Kyle protected himself? That guy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wounded survivor’s testimony will be key. I bet he will say that they thought Rittenhouse was a mass shooter, given his age and actions.

You mean the guy who tried to shoot Kyle? And Kyle protected himself? That guy?

That guy is also a convicted felon. A felon who was out in the street that night: armed with an illegal gun.

He knew he was a felon; he knew it was illegal to even touch a gun; to even possess a single bullet! Yet he raised his illegal gun at Rittenhouse (who defended himself).

You think the jury will believe anything that guy says??

[Anonymous]

Reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case. When two mental midgets have a confrontation, bad things happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wounded survivor’s testimony will be key. I bet he will say that they thought Rittenhouse was a mass shooter, given his age and actions.

You mean the guy who tried to shoot Kyle? And Kyle protected himself? That guy?

That guy is also a convicted felon. A felon who was out in the street that night: armed with an illegal gun.

He knew he was a felon; he knew it was illegal to even touch a gun; to even possess a single bullet! Yet he raised his illegal gun at Rittenhouse (who defended himself).

You think the jury will believe anything that guy says??

Exactly. He was going to shoot Kyle. Kyle defended himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The people who were shot are indirectly on trial. The whole trial is about one simple question: “was Rittenhouse in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm from a situation he didn’t directly cause”

And no, simply being there with a rifle was not causing the situation. You may not like him. You may hate his ideology and politics. You may think he’s a trouble maker. But none of that matters because in this country the law is supposed to apply with equal force to all. And the law especially applies to the people society hates most. A lot of lawyers saw much of the video footage and thought it was a text book self defense claim. A lot thought it was worthy of trying him for murder. But I’d encourage everyone to be more open minded about this because there is a really decent chance that Rittenhouse is going to walk out if they court room a free man who exercised his self defense rights.

No, no he wasn't. HE caused it. He was there illegally, crossing state lines essentially with an illegal weapon in the state of Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people who were shot are indirectly on trial. The whole trial is about one simple question: “was Rittenhouse in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm from a situation he didn’t directly cause”

And no, simply being there with a rifle was not causing the situation. You may not like him. You may hate his ideology and politics. You may think he’s a trouble maker. But none of that matters because in this country the law is supposed to apply with equal force to all. And the law especially applies to the people society hates most. A lot of lawyers saw much of the video footage and thought it was a text book self defense claim. A lot thought it was worthy of trying him for murder. But I’d encourage everyone to be more open minded about this because there is a really decent chance that Rittenhouse is going to walk out if they court room a free man who exercised his self defense rights.

No, no he wasn't. HE caused it. He was there illegally, crossing state lines essentially with an illegal weapon in the state of Wisconsin.

The prosecution got their ass handed to them by their own witness yesterday. Thr FBI has surveillance footage that shows Kyle acted in self defense. Court TV’s Michael Ayala said he’s struggling with the case against Kyle.

Kyle didn’t cause anything. He was not there “illegally.” If you disagree, state how he was there “illegally.”






Kyle was there to clean graffiti and help business owners maintain security as BLM burned and looted.

[Anonymous]

Another witness testified that the same man threatened/told Kyle and his friends that if “he saw one of them alone that night, he was going to kill them.”

It’s called self-defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people who were shot are indirectly on trial. The whole trial is about one simple question: “was Rittenhouse in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm from a situation he didn’t directly cause”

And no, simply being there with a rifle was not causing the situation. You may not like him. You may hate his ideology and politics. You may think he’s a trouble maker. But none of that matters because in this country the law is supposed to apply with equal force to all. And the law especially applies to the people society hates most. A lot of lawyers saw much of the video footage and thought it was a text book self defense claim. A lot thought it was worthy of trying him for murder. But I’d encourage everyone to be more open minded about this because there is a really decent chance that Rittenhouse is going to walk out if they court room a free man who exercised his self defense rights.

No, no he wasn't. HE caused it. He was there illegally, crossing state lines essentially with an illegal weapon in the state of Wisconsin.

Can you stop lying?

FBI aerial surveillance video shows never-before-seen actions before Kyle Rittenhouse shot unarmed man
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/03/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial/index.html

CNN) New FBI infrared aerial surveillance video played in Kyle Rittenouse's homicide trial Wednesday provides a unique angle into the final moments before the teenager fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum during the unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last August.

The infrared video, grainy and shot from 8,500 feet overhead, shows Rittenhouse hustling along a sidewalk and passing Rosenbaum, who is positioned next to a cluster of parked cars.

The video shows the two stop and interact, and Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, then begins to run toward Rittenhouse, who is armed with a rifle. Rittenhouse, then 17, runs away from Rosenbaum before the teenager ultimately turns and shoots him four times, the video shows.

In the video, Rittenhouse is moving rapidly along a sidewalk by himself. The sidewalk leads to a parking lot, where Rosenbaum is positioned next to a cluster of parked cars.

Rittenhouse slows down in the video, and there appears to be some kind of exchange, but there is no audio of the moment.

Other videos from witnesses on the ground show that Rittenhouse could be heard yelling "friendly, friendly, friendly" at this point.

"And it does not dissuade Mr. Rosenbaum, correct?" Richards said.

"Correct," Howard responded.

Rittenhouse continued to move in the same direction he was moving previously, and Rosenbaum starts to chase Rittenhouse. Videos taken of the scene from other witnesses show Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse but he was otherwise unarmed.

These other videos also show that a different person fired a gunshot in the air seconds before Rittenhouse fatally shot Rosenbaum.