Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^When you have to go back over 50 years to cite an example, you have failed.

And, what evidence is it that the people shot by Rittenhouse were "fighting for civil rights?" Seems to me they were looking for trouble.

Why were people out protesting that night? What triggered that?

Yes, it’s mind boggling that we are still battling for civil rights 50+ years later. And people are still dying - even some white people.

You should be profoundly embarrassed of those people. They were rioters and looters and criminals. This is a clear case of self defense and this dopey kid should get off but the jurors will feel pressure to convict because the animals will burn down their city if they do the right thing and acquit. Just a sad and disgusting time we live in when the imbeciles are so empowered.

[Anonymous]

If you point a gun at someone, they have a right to shoot you. Legally and morally.

Why are we still discussing this? It seems like a fairly straightforward case.

-NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you point a gun at someone, they have a right to shoot you. Legally and morally.

Why are we still discussing this? It seems like a fairly straightforward case.

-NP

+ 1 from another NP. Kyle will be acquitted. Unfortunately, there will still probably be public outrage/riots, since most people haven’t been following the trial closely. :/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The prosecution team appears rather incompetent at this stage.

They have an impossible case.

Most would agree he exercised bad judgement in being there in the first place, but he was attacked by three felons and defended himself.

What is concerning is how many people on DCUM want to see him convicted, not because he is guilty, but because of his identity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the third person shot on the stand today as a prosecution witness. So far:

1. He admitted that KR shot him only after he had first pointed his gun at KR.

2. He chased after KR.

3. In an encounter earlier in the night, KR had asked him if needed medical assistance.

0. Rotten Kyle asked his mommy to drive him to Wisco so he could make trouble. He didn’t live there, he didn’t own a business there. He just wanted to make trouble.

I stipulate that everything you said is true. What bearing does that have on this trial?

Gaige Grosskreutz admitted on examination under oath he pointed his gun at Kyle first, and only then did Kyle raise his gun to shoot him. That’s self defense on Kyle’s part. That’s the bearing.

After Kyle had already shot someone dead and was running away. He was being chased by guys who were trying to stop a mass shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you point a gun at someone, they have a right to shoot you. Legally and morally.

Why are we still discussing this? It seems like a fairly straightforward case.

-NP

+ 1 from another NP. Kyle will be acquitted. Unfortunately, there will still probably be public outrage/riots, since most people haven’t been following the trial closely. :/

3 WHITE criminals got shot during a riot.

No one is going to turn out for another riot if this kid gets acquitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the third person shot on the stand today as a prosecution witness. So far:

1. He admitted that KR shot him only after he had first pointed his gun at KR.

2. He chased after KR.

3. In an encounter earlier in the night, KR had asked him if needed medical assistance.

0. Rotten Kyle asked his mommy to drive him to Wisco so he could make trouble. He didn’t live there, he didn’t own a business there. He just wanted to make trouble.

I stipulate that everything you said is true. What bearing does that have on this trial?

Gaige Grosskreutz admitted on examination under oath he pointed his gun at Kyle first, and only then did Kyle raise his gun to shoot him. That’s self defense on Kyle’s part. That’s the bearing.

After Kyle had already shot someone dead and was running away. He was being chased by guys who were trying to stop a mass shooting.

That is a lie.

But you go on repeating it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the third person shot on the stand today as a prosecution witness. So far:

1. He admitted that KR shot him only after he had first pointed his gun at KR.

2. He chased after KR.

3. In an encounter earlier in the night, KR had asked him if needed medical assistance.

0. Rotten Kyle asked his mommy to drive him to Wisco so he could make trouble. He didn’t live there, he didn’t own a business there. He just wanted to make trouble.

I stipulate that everything you said is true. What bearing does that have on this trial?

Gaige Grosskreutz admitted on examination under oath he pointed his gun at Kyle first, and only then did Kyle raise his gun to shoot him. That’s self defense on Kyle’s part. That’s the bearing.

After Kyle had already shot someone dead and was running away. He was being chased by guys who were trying to stop a mass shooting.

You need to come back to reality.

1. With respect to the first person KR shot and killed, phone video and FBI drone footage clearly showed KR first retreated. It was when he was cornered I t eh parking lot the the shot the first person.

2. KR then ran away at least a block from the location of the first shooting with people chasing him (including the two people subsequently shot).

3. KR falls to the ground and while in a defenseless position one guy tries to jump stomp his head and another swings a skateboard at KR’s head. While skateboard guy is winding up for another swing, KR still on the ground shoots and kills him. Whoever suggested a skateboard is just a child’s toy is badly misinformed. There are tons of videos online of skateboards being used in fights. They absolutely could be used to kill someone.

4. While KR is still defenseless on the ground, handgun guy approaches KR and by handgun guy’s own testimony draws and points his handgun at KR first. Handgun guy is shot in the arm.

A. Was KR a stupid, foolish child in possession of a firearm? Yes! Does any of that negate his self defense right? No.

B. Did anybody who attacked him have the right to attack him? The answer clearly seems to be no.

C. A lot of people are talking about civil rights in this thread but it seems obvious to many (most?) objective observers that this is a sham prosecution. Who here cares about KR’s civil rights? He’s pretty clearly being prosecuted for his identity and political ideology. That should scare everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the third person shot on the stand today as a prosecution witness. So far:

1. He admitted that KR shot him only after he had first pointed his gun at KR.

2. He chased after KR.

3. In an encounter earlier in the night, KR had asked him if needed medical assistance.

0. Rotten Kyle asked his mommy to drive him to Wisco so he could make trouble. He didn’t live there, he didn’t own a business there. He just wanted to make trouble.

I stipulate that everything you said is true. What bearing does that have on this trial?

Gaige Grosskreutz admitted on examination under oath he pointed his gun at Kyle first, and only then did Kyle raise his gun to shoot him. That’s self defense on Kyle’s part. That’s the bearing.

After Kyle had already shot someone dead and was running away. He was being chased by guys who were trying to stop a mass shooting.

That is a lie.

But you go on repeating it.

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[[…]
C. A lot of people are talking about civil rights in this thread but it seems obvious to many (most?) objective observers that this is a sham prosecution. Who here cares about KR’s civil rights? He’s pretty clearly being prosecuted for his identity and political ideology. That should scare everyone.

No, it seems obvious to most objective observers that he murdered three people.

We frown on murder in this country, or we used to. Now Republicans look for scammy ways to weasel their ideological partners out of it. He went there to make trouble. He did. He FAAFO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[[…]
C. A lot of people are talking about civil rights in this thread but it seems obvious to many (most?) objective observers that this is a sham prosecution. Who here cares about KR’s civil rights? He’s pretty clearly being prosecuted for his identity and political ideology. That should scare everyone.

No, it seems obvious to most objective observers that he murdered three people.

We frown on murder in this country, or we used to. Now Republicans look for scammy ways to weasel their ideological partners out of it. He went there to make trouble. He did. He FAAFO.

What makes you the objective observer and not the PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[[…]
C. A lot of people are talking about civil rights in this thread but it seems obvious to many (most?) objective observers that this is a sham prosecution. Who here cares about KR’s civil rights? He’s pretty clearly being prosecuted for his identity and political ideology. That should scare everyone.

No, it seems obvious to most objective observers that he murdered three people.

We frown on murder in this country, or we used to. Now Republicans look for scammy ways to weasel their ideological partners out of it. He went there to make trouble. He did. He FAAFO.

Have you watched ANY of the trial? Have you not paid attention to the testimony from the witnesses who were *supposed* to be great for the prosecution?
You are likely paying attention only to media reports who are trying to spin this trial in favor of the prosecution.
Anyone with a scintilla of critical thinking who has actually watched the trial or read unbiased accounts of it KNOW that charges should have never been filed against Rittenhouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[[…]
C. A lot of people are talking about civil rights in this thread but it seems obvious to many (most?) objective observers that this is a sham prosecution. Who here cares about KR’s civil rights? He’s pretty clearly being prosecuted for his identity and political ideology. That should scare everyone.

No, it seems obvious to most objective observers that he murdered three people.

We frown on murder in this country, or we used to. Now Republicans look for scammy ways to weasel their ideological partners out of it. He went there to make trouble. He did. He FAAFO.

Lol, no. Get your facts right. He shot and killed two people. The third was shot in the arm and recovered from his wounds.

The law is not scammy. It applies with equal force to everyone—especially people that society doesn’t like. Going there to make trouble in some general sense doesn’t negate his right to self defense. What is so hard to understand about this? Nothing that is in the record right now indicates a fact pattern that negates his self defense right. That’s why the judge is allowing him to mount a self defense case.

What exactly did he find out? He looks well on his way to walking free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecution team appears rather incompetent at this stage.

They have an impossible case.

Most would agree he exercised bad judgement in being there in the first place, but he was attacked by three felons and defended himself.

What is concerning is how many people on DCUM want to see him convicted, not because he is guilty, but because of his identity.

That’s usually the only reason many at DCUM want to see someone convicted.

Or not.

[Anonymous]

Sounds to me like the “good guy with the gun” is the one who tried to stop Rittenhouse from murdering more people with his illegal assault rifle. You all want the good guy with a gun to get shot?