Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They’re morons! I hope they don’t poop on the floor at home and smear it on the walls!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

I’ll agree that the guy is dumb, but really, nobody has business or a reason to be at a riot. They all should have just stayed at home. They all went out looking for trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

And yet none of that is legally relevant to his right of self defense. The right to self defense isn’t somehow limited because he was in a public place he had no reason or business for being in. The relevant question is whether he had a right to be there. Not a reason to be there.

Apply your framework to the Freedom Riders in 1961. They crossed state lines to protest horrible segregation laws in the south by breaking the law in buses that were not segregated. Sometimes those protests got violent when they stopped in various towns throughout the south. Are you trying to suggest those Freedom Riders had no right to defend themselves against violent, racist mobs just because they were not local residents and they were engaged in a crime (at the time)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

His father lives in Kenosha and he worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha. He was literally there to protect Kenosha from the riots, looting and arson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

And yet none of that is legally relevant to his right of self defense. The right to self defense isn’t somehow limited because he was in a public place he had no reason or business for being in. The relevant question is whether he had a right to be there. Not a reason to be there.

Apply your framework to the Freedom Riders in 1961. They crossed state lines to protest horrible segregation laws in the south by breaking the law in buses that were not segregated. Sometimes those protests got violent when they stopped in various towns throughout the south. Are you trying to suggest those Freedom Riders had no right to defend themselves against violent, racist mobs just because they were not local residents and they were engaged in a crime (at the time)?

No if you looking for trouble it is not self defense. Next you will stay someone can break into your house and kill everyone in self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

NP - wait:

- is it a crime to cross a state line with a firearm? ( no ),

- is it a crime to “be at a place he had otherwise no reason or business being?” ( um - isn’t that simply a really biased opinion on your part, and in no way a crime? ).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

And yet none of that is legally relevant to his right of self defense. The right to self defense isn’t somehow limited because he was in a public place he had no reason or business for being in. The relevant question is whether he had a right to be there. Not a reason to be there.

Apply your framework to the Freedom Riders in 1961. They crossed state lines to protest horrible segregation laws in the south by breaking the law in buses that were not segregated. Sometimes those protests got violent when they stopped in various towns throughout the south. Are you trying to suggest those Freedom Riders had no right to defend themselves against violent, racist mobs just because they were not local residents and they were engaged in a crime (at the time)?

Are you seriously suggesting the Freedom Riders were the instigators of the violence? Are you really equating Rittenhouse with the Freedom Riders?

Wow, that might be a new low in this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

His father lives in Kenosha and he worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha. He was literally there to protect Kenosha from the riots, looting and arson.

He crossed state lines and and an illegal weapon. He had NO business "protecting" Kenosha. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

NP - wait:

- is it a crime to cross a state line with a firearm? ( no ),

- is it a crime to “be at a place he had otherwise no reason or business being?” ( um - isn’t that simply a really biased opinion on your part, and in no way a crime? ).

In Rittenhouse's case, the answer to the first question is actually "yes" so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

. Gotta say? If I was a juror, the moment I found out the FBI withheld video? Innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

NP - wait:

- is it a crime to cross a state line with a firearm? ( no ),

- is it a crime to “be at a place he had otherwise no reason or business being?” ( um - isn’t that simply a really biased opinion on your part, and in no way a crime? ).

Hey dummy. It was illegal for him to possess that gun. He is underage and someone bought it for him illegally. So yeah, it was illegal for him to have it anywhere.

[Anonymous]

He had the gun illegally, he voluntarily traveled to where he knew there would be civil unrest and he is a known white nationalist who was influenced by the Floyd protests happening concurrently.

He could have stayed home and done online gaming with his friends and it would have been more appropriate, but he made choices and will need to live with the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP...I think it is relevant because he literally crossed state lines, illegally with a weapon, to a place he had otherwise no reason or business being.

If he lived in Kenosha and this was all happening on his street and he was scared for his well being, that would almost be one thing, but that isn't his situation, now is it?

And yet none of that is legally relevant to his right of self defense. The right to self defense isn’t somehow limited because he was in a public place he had no reason or business for being in. The relevant question is whether he had a right to be there. Not a reason to be there.

Apply your framework to the Freedom Riders in 1961. They crossed state lines to protest horrible segregation laws in the south by breaking the law in buses that were not segregated. Sometimes those protests got violent when they stopped in various towns throughout the south. Are you trying to suggest those Freedom Riders had no right to defend themselves against violent, racist mobs just because they were not local residents and they were engaged in a crime (at the time)?

Oh, now you’ve done it!

I can hear heads exploding from here!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He had the gun illegally, he voluntarily traveled to where he knew there would be civil unrest and he is a known white nationalist who was influenced by the Floyd protests happening concurrently.

He could have stayed home and done online gaming with his friends and it would have been more appropriate, but he made choices and will need to live with the consequences.

So much fail...

He could hypothetically be prosecuted for carrying the gun illegally.

Traveling to a place where you know there will be civil unrest is legal. How do you think all the rioters got there? This does nothing to invalidate his claim of self defense.

Being a "white nationalist" is legal (if we suppose for the sake of discussion that that is what he is), and in no way invalidates his claim of self defense.


He has every bit as much of a right to show up at that protest as anyone else. He has every bit as much of a right to defend himself from attack as anyone.