Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

What was that guy doing with a gun at a peaceful protest? He must have intended to murder someone. /s

[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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Maybe. Do you a video of them chasing and cornering people? Or did they just stand there like idiots with guns?

[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.

Exactly right. The people defending this Trumpy murderer now are the same ones who insisted that guy in Charlottesville was justified in driving his car into a crowd. There, they claimed someone had swung a bat at his car, so it was ok to kill people. These Trumpers are the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Maybe. Do you a video of them chasing and cornering people? Or did they just stand there like idiots with guns?

Doesn’t matter, right? They pointed guns at people, so it was ok to shoot them. That’s your read of that law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly right. The people defending this Trumpy murderer now are the same ones who insisted that guy in Charlottesville was justified in driving his car into a crowd. There, they claimed someone had swung a bat at his car, so it was ok to kill people. These Trumpers are the worst.

I think the difference between the two incidents is clear on the videos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Maybe. Do you a video of them chasing and cornering people? Or did they just stand there like idiots with guns?

Doesn’t matter, right? They pointed guns at people, so it was ok to shoot them. That’s your read of that law?

You’re getting into slightly different issues. The protesters in the St Louis example (I believe) were trespassing in that gated community. One of the things that CAN negate a right to self defense is trespassing. Would make for an interesting law school exam question.

Right to self defense exists on a spectrum in most jurisdictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Maybe. Do you a video of them chasing and cornering people? Or did they just stand there like idiots with guns?

Doesn’t matter, right? They pointed guns at people, so it was ok to shoot them. That’s your read of that law?

Nope. My read of the law is that these are questions of fact for a jury to decide on a case by case basis. I think the jury will find that KR acted in self-defense based on viewing the videos of him running away and eyewitness testimony. Other politically charged cases are inadmissible at trial. I imagine anyone who thought stuff like that relevant would ve excluded from the jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Maybe. Do you a video of them chasing and cornering people? Or did they just stand there like idiots with guns?

Either pointing a gun at someone means anyone with a gun can shoot them or it doesn’t. That’s why this is such an important case. rittenhouse had absolutely no reason to be there. He just wanted to play his own first person shooter game.

The GOP just doesn’t think “consequences” are for anyone on their side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Maybe. Do you a video of them chasing and cornering people? Or did they just stand there like idiots with guns?

Doesn’t matter, right? They pointed guns at people, so it was ok to shoot them. That’s your read of that law?

You’re getting into slightly different issues. The protesters in the St Louis example (I believe) were trespassing in that gated community. One of the things that CAN negate a right to self defense is trespassing. Would make for an interesting law school exam question.

Right to self defense exists on a spectrum in most jurisdictions.

And remind everyone, did Rittenhouse live in Kenosha? Did he even live in Wisconsin? Or was he just a vigilante?

[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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Rosenbaum didn't point a gun at Rittenhouse and there was testimony that Rosenbaum did not pose any kind of credible threat to Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Maybe. Do you a video of them chasing and cornering people? Or did they just stand there like idiots with guns?

Doesn’t matter, right? They pointed guns at people, so it was ok to shoot them. That’s your read of that law?

You’re getting into slightly different issues. The protesters in the St Louis example (I believe) were trespassing in that gated community. One of the things that CAN negate a right to self defense is trespassing. Would make for an interesting law school exam question.

Right to self defense exists on a spectrum in most jurisdictions.

And remind everyone, did Rittenhouse live in Kenosha? Did he even live in Wisconsin? Or was he just a vigilante?

Just a vigilante.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Maybe. Do you a video of them chasing and cornering people? Or did they just stand there like idiots with guns?

Either pointing a gun at someone means anyone with a gun can shoot them or it doesn’t. That’s why this is such an important case. rittenhouse had absolutely no reason to be there. He just wanted to play his own first person shooter game.

The GOP just doesn’t think “consequences” are for anyone on their side.

Context is everything. Also facts. If a protester shot them because they felt threatened, they might get away with it, if the jury believed it was reasonable to feel afraid. On the other habd, if those two shot passersby without provocation, they'd probably be convicted. That's what we have judges and juries for. Because each case is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Rosenbaum didn't point a gun at Rittenhouse and there was testimony that Rosenbaum did not pose any kind of credible threat to Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him.

Everyone Rittenhouse shot was chasing him. It's on the videos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does that mean people were allowed to shoot these two assholes?

Rosenbaum didn't point a gun at Rittenhouse and there was testimony that Rosenbaum did not pose any kind of credible threat to Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him.

Everyone Rittenhouse shot was chasing him. It's on the videos.

The jury will acquit Rittenhouse. Why because they are being presented with the actual facts.