Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

The shooter was a 17 year old from another state who came there to do what he did. He had NO business being there and will hopefully rot in jail for the next 60 years.

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

he had absolute no right to be there. he did not live in that town, he drove there on purpose with an AR15. there was a curfew so he was out illegally. he had not right to be there at all.

I’d be shocked if violating curfew curtails self-defense rights, but I suppose I could be wrong. Living in the town or not has no bearing on his right to be there. Put it this way: do you think the people who were shot forfeited their rights just because they were out after curfew in a town they may or may not have lived in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s only 17. What type of parent f#cked up this badly? Who lets their kid travel across state lines and have access to militia equipment?

This is so sick. I’m a white man, but white culture is responsible for this boy.

So, do you believe Black culture is responsible for all the shootings in DC and Chicago, etc?

That was the point dumb dumb because we hear that narrative all day every day about Black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the videos of Rittenhouse shooting 3 people. He is emotionless, almost like a robot. You can see the life extinguish from the eyes of those who are murdered. It is so sad.

He will be convicted of 2nd degree murder because he violated the escalation of force. The first person he killed was chasing him on foot. A civilian can’t just start shooting someone who is chasing you. The person had no weapon. Further, Rittenhouse was dressed like every other mass shooter. How is anyone supposed to know he’s not there to harm everyone?

Rittenhouse then runs about a block from the first shooting. He is being pursued by a crowd BECAUSE HE JUST MURDERED someone. That’s why they are trying to disarm him. Once he is on the ground he starts firing without any control of his weapon. He kills one person trying to retreat. He hits another in the arm who has pulled out a concealed handgun.

In short, Rittenhouse is going to jail. “Self defense” for a civilian is a much higher threshold than the police. It does not allow you to kill someone who has no weapon and is multiple feet away from you.

Whomever brainwashed this child into a killing monster should be held responsible.

I think this post really shows the impact of framing the issues.

1. You leave out that the first person killed had just thrown a Molotov cocktail (or other homemade incendiary device at the shooter) and chased the shooter into a semi-trapped corner.

2. The second Person who died was swinging a skateboard at the shooter’s head while shooter was on the ground.

3. The third person he shot appears to have probably had a handgun approaching the shooter who was still on the ground.

I’m not sure how you can watch the videos and argue that shooter escalated force. Why the second and third party shot were chasing the shooter who appears to have been retreating is irrelevant.

I’ll bet he gets offers for free defense counsel because some defense lawyer will see this as a strong case and an ability to make a reputation as defense counsel.

He still violated escalation of force in #1. The victim had thrown a piece of garbage on fire at Rittenhouse in one part of the parking lot. He missed and victim proceeded to chase. Rittenhouse shot the victim - who was wearing no shirt and had no weapon in his hands - on the other side of the parking lots. Easily 40-60 feet away from the thrown garbage.

Rittenhouse clearly violates escalation of force. He shot an unarmed man. That isn’t self defense.

Victims #2 and 3 are witnesses to a murder and attempt to disarm Rittenhouse, who had run directly into a crowded protest. Why should they not use every means available to disarm him?

Further, the skateboard victim was in retreat when he was shot. He’s easily 15-20 feet away from Rittenhouse and is killed while moving away from the assailiant. Again, this a violation of escalation of force AND not a legitimate self-defense argument as the victim was in retreat.

Rittenhouse deserves a lengthy sentence. He is a monster.

1. It’s three seconds from where the first person throws the incendiary device (it was clearly more than just garbage, garbage on fire doesn’t fly that far) to when the guy is shot. Not only , but that the guy continued to chase shooter who was clearly retreating and posed no threat (shooter hadn’t fired yet). You can argue escalation of force there, but I’m telling you that defense counsel loves the position they are in on the first shooting.

2. Witnesses don’t have a right to pursue and disarm by any means necessary someone who is retreating. Especially once shooter was on the ground. Skateboard victim was not in retreat. His momentum was carrying him in a direction after missing the shooter. The sound seems to indicate he was shot at point blank range and he *collapses* 12-15 feet away. But he was shot at point blank range.

I could see room for some disagreement here, but not even acknowledging that he has a colorable case of self defense suggests bias to me. People will see what they want to see (including me), but my guess is that defense counsel would love to have this case.

The militia men are illegal vigilantes who should be arrested for impersonating military or police. They’re a menace to our society.

[Anonymous]

The 17 yo should also be charged as an adult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

One of those limited restrictions being that you have to be 18, which he isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: to

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

One of those limited restrictions being that you have to be 18, which he isn't.

So why isn't this open and shut felonh murder? Self defense is irrelevent when there's a felony being committed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

The shooter was a 17 year old from another state who came there to do what he did. He had NO business being there and will hopefully rot in jail for the next 60 years.

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

I guess the curfew didn't apply to him in your mind?

Not for purposes of determining his legal right to self defense.

If he randomly walked up to a protestor and shot a protestor without reason in the head I wouldn’t argue that the protestor lost his rights just because he was violating curfew.

If was violating the curfew, he had no legal right to be there. He can still argue self defense, but by your own logic, it weakens his case.

m

Not quite. Look at my parenthetical. I was using illegal as shorthand for breaking into a house, a car jacking, etc. for example, a jay walker probably doesn’t loses self defense rights. I’d be surprised if being out after curfew (in and of itself) impairs self defense rights in Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Not only was he under age, wasn’t there a curfew? Did the cops who handed out water and expressed their “appreciation” not think to use the curfew as a reason to remove these racist children with guns off the street?

And regardless, who on earth thinks that letting ordinary civilians walk around with this sort of weaponry is wise right now, given the chaos? I’m not talking about your right to kill a lot of people on a normal day, I’m talking about people with guns out in the chaos of these protests. Why would the cops themselves even want that? I understand they know the racists won’t kill THEM, but anyone else could grab that gun, or it accidentally gets used on a cop, etc. Why allow this extra deadly variable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: to

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

One of those limited restrictions being that you have to be 18, which he isn't.

So why isn't this open and shut felonh murder? Self defense is irrelevent when there's a felony being committed

Okay, I just looked it up. Wisconsin law says a person committing an unlawful act (17 year old open carrying) that provoked an attack may still claim self defense if the unlawful actor (17 year old) withdraws from the fight. Shooter turning his back and running away from the first person before shooting is probably going to save his ass here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

The shooter was a 17 year old from another state who came there to do what he did. He had NO business being there and will hopefully rot in jail for the next 60 years.

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

I guess the curfew didn't apply to him in your mind?

Not for purposes of determining his legal right to self defense.

If he randomly walked up to a protestor and shot a protestor without reason in the head I wouldn’t argue that the protestor lost his rights just because he was violating curfew.

If was violating the curfew, he had no legal right to be there. He can still argue self defense, but by your own logic, it weakens his case.

m

Not quite. Look at my parenthetical. I was using illegal as shorthand for breaking into a house, a car jacking, etc. for example, a jay walker probably doesn’t loses self defense rights. I’d be surprised if being out after curfew (in and of itself) impairs self defense rights in Wisconsin.

Well, it may not be as illegal as breaking into a house, but it is less legal than walking around on a normal day, so I'd think it would be a factor. I agree it won't, by itself, negate self-defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

Does open carry usually extend to this type of assault rifle? I can understand the logic of open carry for handguns, but why would anyone not in the middle of military action need the right to open carry what this kid had? What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

He had no legal right as a 17 year old to be walking around with a gun. He did not legally obtain the gun.

[Anonymous]

The police and these militia groups are the same people. Just google it.

[Anonymous]

If the shooter had different-colored skin, the third victim would have been deemed a hero by the right for trying to disarm him with his own concealed Glock. The second victim would have been deemed a hero for trying to take him down with his skateboard.

Curious who the kid called after he killed the first person. And can you really KILL someone for grabbing you?! (We also don't know what happened before the video started)

And that was a plastic grocery bag with a light-ish object in it. It wasn't on fire and it certainly wasn't a Molotov cocktail.