Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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.

No, pointing a gun and shooting someone isn’t a binary issue. States have well developed laws on this issue. The right to self defense changes based on status of the individual claiming the right to self defense.

It doesn’t matter that KR had no reason to be there. It was a public space that wasn’t under martial law. In this country, you don’t generally have to have a reason to be in a public space. He had a right to self defense in that public space regardless of whether he had a reason to be there or not.

[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?

Why do you think it is relevant to his self defense claim that he didn’t live there or even in the state? Self defense laws are styled around whether someone has a right to be where they are.

[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?

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.

That he’s from out of state and came to a protest with a gun? Travesty if he is acquitted.

[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?

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.

That he’s from out of state and came to a protest with a gun? Travesty if he is acquitted.

One of the people he shot also came to a protest with a gun. Why are you not complaining about that?

[Anonymous]

The families can sue in civil court, correct? I would make sure he spend the rest of his life barely making it financially.

[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?

That couple drew guns because they were under attack. An angry mob had just gained illegal entry on their private property and was at that minute trespassing on the couple’s private property (albeit shared ownership with the other owners in their gated community). If you break into someone’s private property then of course they have a right to draw on you. Frankly I think they should have had a right to open fire too. If I was in the jury and they had opened fire, I would have let them go.

That’s not the same thing as drawing on people in a shared public space.

[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?

That couple drew guns because they were under attack. An angry mob had just gained illegal entry on their private property and was at that minute trespassing on the couple’s private property (albeit shared ownership with the other owners in their gated community). If you break into someone’s private property then of course they have a right to draw on you. Frankly I think they should have had a right to open fire too. If I was in the jury and they had opened fire, I would have let them go.

That’s not the same thing as drawing on people in a shared public space.

Please provide links to articles showing those protestors regarding charged with trespassing on the assholes’ private property. I ask again, could someone have legally shot the assholes? You saying that anyone who points a gun can be legally shot suggests that the protestors could have opened fire on these two assholes. I wouldn’t have shed a tear for either of them.

But really, my point is that you’re simply wrong about what the law (legal or moral) really says. It’s against the law to shoot the assholes, and that it was against the law for that little white supremacist twat to shoot people in Kenosha. That’s why he’s getting charged.

Seems to me the real rule you Trumpers follow is that it’s ok if a Trumper does it, but not anyone else. Just making excuses for horrible behavior.

[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?

That couple drew guns because they were under attack. An angry mob had just gained illegal entry on their private property and was at that minute trespassing on the couple’s private property (albeit shared ownership with the other owners in their gated community). If you break into someone’s private property then of course they have a right to draw on you. Frankly I think they should have had a right to open fire too. If I was in the jury and they had opened fire, I would have let them go.

That’s not the same thing as drawing on people in a shared public space.

Please provide links to articles showing those protestors regarding charged with trespassing on the assholes’ private property. I ask again, could someone have legally shot the assholes? You saying that anyone who points a gun can be legally shot suggests that the protestors could have opened fire on these two assholes. I wouldn’t have shed a tear for either of them.

But really, my point is that you’re simply wrong about what the law (legal or moral) really says. It’s against the law to shoot the assholes, and that it was against the law for that little white supremacist twat to shoot people in Kenosha. That’s why he’s getting charged.

Seems to me the real rule you Trumpers follow is that it’s ok if a Trumper does it, but not anyone else. Just making excuses for horrible behavior.

If someone breaks into your private liberal elite enclave, I’m fine with you drawing on them, no matter how they vote. I seriously doubt that it would be a “trumper” breaking into your community (as do you, let’s be honest), but if it was then yes, you have a right to protect yourself and that right is amplified when you’re on your own private property if the intruders have no legal right to even stand where they’re standing.

[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?

That couple drew guns because they were under attack. An angry mob had just gained illegal entry on their private property and was at that minute trespassing on the couple’s private property (albeit shared ownership with the other owners in their gated community). If you break into someone’s private property then of course they have a right to draw on you. Frankly I think they should have had a right to open fire too. If I was in the jury and they had opened fire, I would have let them go.

That’s not the same thing as drawing on people in a shared public space.

Please provide links to articles showing those protestors regarding charged with trespassing on the assholes’ private property. I ask again, could someone have legally shot the assholes? You saying that anyone who points a gun can be legally shot suggests that the protestors could have opened fire on these two assholes. I wouldn’t have shed a tear for either of them.

But really, my point is that you’re simply wrong about what the law (legal or moral) really says. It’s against the law to shoot the assholes, and that it was against the law for that little white supremacist twat to shoot people in Kenosha. That’s why he’s getting charged.

Seems to me the real rule you Trumpers follow is that it’s ok if a Trumper does it, but not anyone else. Just making excuses for horrible behavior.

If someone breaks into your private liberal elite enclave, I’m fine with you drawing on them, no matter how they vote. I seriously doubt that it would be a “trumper” breaking into your community (as do you, let’s be honest), but if it was then yes, you have a right to protect yourself and that right is amplified when you’re on your own private property if the intruders have no legal right to even stand where they’re standing.

Excellent logic. I live in DC. So next time you assholes try to storm the Capitol in my city, glad to know I have your blessing to start killing people.

[Anonymous]

^ Are you so affected by all the socialist talk that you genuinely can’t tell the difference anymore between public and private property?

[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?

That couple drew guns because they were under attack. An angry mob had just gained illegal entry on their private property and was at that minute trespassing on the couple’s private property (albeit shared ownership with the other owners in their gated community). If you break into someone’s private property then of course they have a right to draw on you. Frankly I think they should have had a right to open fire too. If I was in the jury and they had opened fire, I would have let them go.

That’s not the same thing as drawing on people in a shared public space.

Please provide links to articles showing those protestors regarding charged with trespassing on the assholes’ private property. I ask again, could someone have legally shot the assholes? You saying that anyone who points a gun can be legally shot suggests that the protestors could have opened fire on these two assholes. I wouldn’t have shed a tear for either of them.

But really, my point is that you’re simply wrong about what the law (legal or moral) really says. It’s against the law to shoot the assholes, and that it was against the law for that little white supremacist twat to shoot people in Kenosha. That’s why he’s getting charged.

Seems to me the real rule you Trumpers follow is that it’s ok if a Trumper does it, but not anyone else. Just making excuses for horrible behavior.

DP. In St. Louis, the protestors were trespassing into a gated community. Under Missouri law, a quick search indicates those protestors had an affirmative duty to retreat before the use of deadly force in self defense because the protestors had no right to be there. Again, self defense laws are fairly well developed with lots of nuance in this country because these scenarios have played out over and over again.

More important, you are using words like “twat”, “asshole” and “Trumper” because your judgment is clouded by who these people are. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. Being a twat, asshole or Trumper has no bearing on the question of lawful self defense using deadly force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Excellent logic. I live in DC. So next time you assholes try to storm the Capitol in my city, glad to know I have your blessing to start killing people.

^ Are you so affected by all the socialist talk that you genuinely can’t tell the difference anymore between public and private property?

Wow, right? Dude if you think the Capitol is your private residence, I see a straight jacket and big time meds in your future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Excellent logic. I live in DC. So next time you assholes try to storm the Capitol in my city, glad to know I have your blessing to start killing people.

^ Are you so affected by all the socialist talk that you genuinely can’t tell the difference anymore between public and private property?

Wow, right? Dude if you think the Capitol is your private residence, I see a straight jacket and big time meds in your future.

Tell that to the 01/06 insurrectionists who were screaming “THIS IS OUR HOUSE!” as they stormed the capitol.

[Anonymous]

This case is really complicated. You’re allowed to use lethal force if you believe it’s necessary to save your life or the lives of others. However, it wasn’t legal for Rittenhouse to be carrying a gun at all. Self defense is legal, but if it wasn’t legal for him to be in possession of the gun, was it legal for him to use it to defend himself? Also, the guy who survived being shot by Rittenhouse, who testified yesterday, said he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. He did so because he had seen Rittenhouse fire on people. I’m sure he truly believed that Rittenhouse might have been about to take more lives, which gave him the right to use lethal force to protect lives. So he pointed a gun to protect lives and in return, Rittenhouse shot him in self defense. If everyone involved believes they’re protecting lives, does that make shootouts in our streets legal?

This is why a well regulated militia is constitutionally protected, but untrained vigilantes are a threat to everyone.

[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.

Gaige also confessed:

- he lied to police about bringing a pistol to the protest.

Thought it was a crime to lie to the police?