Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

Rittenhouse came from out of state to kill people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

You’re leaving out some key facts. As the HD video played at the trial today showed, KR clearly retreated from the first guy and didn’t shoot the first guy until KR was cornered and the first guy was lunging at him at arm’s distance.

As video has clearly shown, KR then retreated almost two full blocks from the first shooting when the second and third shootings occurred. KR was on the ground in a defenseless position when the jump kick guy, then skate board guy and finally handgun guy attacked KR.

Based on the evidence known today, this isn’t a tricky 1L hypothetical at all. This seems like he’s going to successfully assert self defense and walk away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

You’re leaving out some key facts. As the HD video played at the trial today showed, KR clearly retreated from the first guy and didn’t shoot the first guy until KR was cornered and the first guy was lunging at him at arm’s distance.

As video has clearly shown, KR then retreated almost two full blocks from the first shooting when the second and third shootings occurred. KR was on the ground in a defenseless position when the jump kick guy, then skate board guy and finally handgun guy attacked KR.

Based on the evidence known today, this isn’t a tricky 1L hypothetical at all. This seems like he’s going to successfully assert self defense and walk away.

"On the ground in a defenseless position" while armed -- and he killed another person and wounded another while on the ground in your so-called defenseless position.

[Anonymous]

why did he shoot the first guy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

You’re leaving out some key facts. As the HD video played at the trial today showed, KR clearly retreated from the first guy and didn’t shoot the first guy until KR was cornered and the first guy was lunging at him at arm’s distance.

As video has clearly shown, KR then retreated almost two full blocks from the first shooting when the second and third shootings occurred. KR was on the ground in a defenseless position when the jump kick guy, then skate board guy and finally handgun guy attacked KR.

Based on the evidence known today, this isn’t a tricky 1L hypothetical at all. This seems like he’s going to successfully assert self defense and walk away.

You say he retreated; from another perspective, he fled the scene. There were tons of lawless thugs and multiple people carrying, but everyone who got shot was shot by the same guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

You’re leaving out some key facts. As the HD video played at the trial today showed, KR clearly retreated from the first guy and didn’t shoot the first guy until KR was cornered and the first guy was lunging at him at arm’s distance.

As video has clearly shown, KR then retreated almost two full blocks from the first shooting when the second and third shootings occurred. KR was on the ground in a defenseless position when the jump kick guy, then skate board guy and finally handgun guy attacked KR.

Based on the evidence known today, this isn’t a tricky 1L hypothetical at all. This seems like he’s going to successfully assert self defense and walk away.

"On the ground in a defenseless position" while armed -- and he killed another person and wounded another while on the ground in your so-called defenseless position.

Feel free to look at the evidence for yourself. He was flat on the ground when jump kick guy went after him, he had sat up when he first got hit by skateboard guy and was still sitting in an awkward sitting position when he killed skate bird guy. When handgun guy got to him he was still sitting on his ass and not pointing the rifle at anyone (by handgun guy’s own testimony). Handgun guy pulls out his hand gun, KR reaches for the rifle, draws and fires. At not point in time could he have generated any power from his hips between the time he went down to the ground and the final shooting. You may or may not understand these things, but if you can’t generate power from the hips, you can’t defend yourself. But for the weapon, he would have been toast the moment he hit the ground.

He had no leverage from the ground from the weird sitting position he was in. That’s pretty much textbook defenseless position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why did he shoot the first guy?

Because the first guy was chasing him. And testimony at the trial revealed that the first guy told KR earlier in the night that he (the first guy) was going to kill KR if he got his hands on him (or something to that effect).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

You’re leaving out some key facts. As the HD video played at the trial today showed, KR clearly retreated from the first guy and didn’t shoot the first guy until KR was cornered and the first guy was lunging at him at arm’s distance.

As video has clearly shown, KR then retreated almost two full blocks from the first shooting when the second and third shootings occurred. KR was on the ground in a defenseless position when the jump kick guy, then skate board guy and finally handgun guy attacked KR.

Based on the evidence known today, this isn’t a tricky 1L hypothetical at all. This seems like he’s going to successfully assert self defense and walk away.

"On the ground in a defenseless position" while armed -- and he killed another person and wounded another while on the ground in your so-called defenseless position.

Feel free to look at the evidence for yourself. He was flat on the ground when jump kick guy went after him, he had sat up when he first got hit by skateboard guy and was still sitting in an awkward sitting position when he killed skate bird guy. When handgun guy got to him he was still sitting on his ass and not pointing the rifle at anyone (by handgun guy’s own testimony). Handgun guy pulls out his hand gun, KR reaches for the rifle, draws and fires. At not point in time could he have generated any power from his hips between the time he went down to the ground and the final shooting. You may or may not understand these things, but if you can’t generate power from the hips, you can’t defend yourself. But for the weapon, he would have been toast the moment he hit the ground.

He had no leverage from the ground from the weird sitting position he was in. That’s pretty much textbook defenseless position.

When you're armed and on the ground, you're not defenseless. Just letting you know, buddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

You’re leaving out some key facts. As the HD video played at the trial today showed, KR clearly retreated from the first guy and didn’t shoot the first guy until KR was cornered and the first guy was lunging at him at arm’s distance.

As video has clearly shown, KR then retreated almost two full blocks from the first shooting when the second and third shootings occurred. KR was on the ground in a defenseless position when the jump kick guy, then skate board guy and finally handgun guy attacked KR.

Based on the evidence known today, this isn’t a tricky 1L hypothetical at all. This seems like he’s going to successfully assert self defense and walk away.

You say he retreated; from another perspective, he fled the scene. There were tons of lawless thugs and multiple people carrying, but everyone who got shot was shot by the same guy.

Fleeing is the same as retreating in this case. KR was moving away from the confrontation. Virtually all self defense laws are based on the idea that a retreating (fleeing) person should be allowed to retreat, especially when no direct, immediate danger is perceived. Stated more simply, when one party wants the confrontation to be over and is leaving, the confrontation should be over.

So what if everyone was shot by the same guy? You can’t draw any logical conclusions from that other than everyone who was shot was shot by the same guy. This is especially true when you watch the video and listen to prosecution witnesses at trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

You’re leaving out some key facts. As the HD video played at the trial today showed, KR clearly retreated from the first guy and didn’t shoot the first guy until KR was cornered and the first guy was lunging at him at arm’s distance.

As video has clearly shown, KR then retreated almost two full blocks from the first shooting when the second and third shootings occurred. KR was on the ground in a defenseless position when the jump kick guy, then skate board guy and finally handgun guy attacked KR.

Based on the evidence known today, this isn’t a tricky 1L hypothetical at all. This seems like he’s going to successfully assert self defense and walk away.

"On the ground in a defenseless position" while armed -- and he killed another person and wounded another while on the ground in your so-called defenseless position.

Feel free to look at the evidence for yourself. He was flat on the ground when jump kick guy went after him, he had sat up when he first got hit by skateboard guy and was still sitting in an awkward sitting position when he killed skate bird guy. When handgun guy got to him he was still sitting on his ass and not pointing the rifle at anyone (by handgun guy’s own testimony). Handgun guy pulls out his hand gun, KR reaches for the rifle, draws and fires. At not point in time could he have generated any power from his hips between the time he went down to the ground and the final shooting. You may or may not understand these things, but if you can’t generate power from the hips, you can’t defend yourself. But for the weapon, he would have been toast the moment he hit the ground.

He had no leverage from the ground from the weird sitting position he was in. That’s pretty much textbook defenseless position.

When you're armed and on the ground, you're not defenseless. Just letting you know, buddy.

Plenty of armed people have been killed while on the ground. Your posture really matters when it comes to self defense. I get what you’re saying, but a person who is flat on the ground or sitting on there ass is in a really compromised position, armed or not. Either way, you’re nitpicking here. The case is going horribly for the prosecution thus far and the state rested today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a bit of the trial. He’s going to be acquitted for sure. They showed footage of other people not getting shot even though they had advanced rapidly and were just a few feet away, and even the star witness was not shot when he had advanced rapidly and was just a few feet away… until he pulled out his handgun (that he had previously declined to mention) and drew on the guy who would turn out to be the shooter (who was on the ground at the time and in a very vulnerable position).

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This applies to everyone who was part of the gunfire that night, including Rittenhouse.

Yes, but he shouldn’t be in prison for it.

The guy who was shot was carrying a concealed firearm illegally to a riot. And then he chased down Rittenhouse and drew on him from an elevated position three feet away. While Rittenhouse was in the street sitting on his butt. The guy who was shot deserved it. There shouldn’t even be a trial here.

So Rittenhouse killed a guy - no one else was killing people at the riot, so this was pretty shocking for everyone. Then the mob tried to disarm him, including by using a skateboard and whatever was at hand. Rittenhouse then shot someone and killed another. The mob was obviously motivated by self-defense. Rittenhouse is trying to say that he was motivated by self-defense too, but he had already showed the mob that he was extremely dangerous.

Does this seem like a tricky 1L hypothetical to you? Or an easy one?

You’re leaving out some key facts. As the HD video played at the trial today showed, KR clearly retreated from the first guy and didn’t shoot the first guy until KR was cornered and the first guy was lunging at him at arm’s distance.

As video has clearly shown, KR then retreated almost two full blocks from the first shooting when the second and third shootings occurred. KR was on the ground in a defenseless position when the jump kick guy, then skate board guy and finally handgun guy attacked KR.

Based on the evidence known today, this isn’t a tricky 1L hypothetical at all. This seems like he’s going to successfully assert self defense and walk away.

"On the ground in a defenseless position" while armed -- and he killed another person and wounded another while on the ground in your so-called defenseless position.

Feel free to look at the evidence for yourself. He was flat on the ground when jump kick guy went after him, he had sat up when he first got hit by skateboard guy and was still sitting in an awkward sitting position when he killed skate bird guy. When handgun guy got to him he was still sitting on his ass and not pointing the rifle at anyone (by handgun guy’s own testimony). Handgun guy pulls out his hand gun, KR reaches for the rifle, draws and fires. At not point in time could he have generated any power from his hips between the time he went down to the ground and the final shooting. You may or may not understand these things, but if you can’t generate power from the hips, you can’t defend yourself. But for the weapon, he would have been toast the moment he hit the ground.

He had no leverage from the ground from the weird sitting position he was in. That’s pretty much textbook defenseless position.

When you're armed and on the ground, you're not defenseless. Just letting you know, buddy.

Only if you’re allowed to use your firearm to defend yourself, buddy.

If he wasn’t allowed to use his firearm to defend himself then he was defenseless.