Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

Does open carry usually extend to this type of assault rifle? I can understand the logic of open carry for handguns, but why would anyone not in the middle of military action need the right to open carry what this kid had? What am I missing?

You are not kidding anything.

He did not legally own the gun and he was not old enough to legally cross states lines with the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 17 yo should also be charged as an adult

He is an adult under criminal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

The shooter was a 17 year old from another state who came there to do what he did. He had NO business being there and will hopefully rot in jail for the next 60 years.

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

I guess the curfew didn't apply to him in your mind?

Not for purposes of determining his legal right to self defense.

If he randomly walked up to a protestor and shot a protestor without reason in the head I wouldn’t argue that the protestor lost his rights just because he was violating curfew.

If was violating the curfew, he had no legal right to be there. He can still argue self defense, but by your own logic, it weakens his case.

m

Not quite. Look at my parenthetical. I was using illegal as shorthand for breaking into a house, a car jacking, etc. for example, a jay walker probably doesn’t loses self defense rights. I’d be surprised if being out after curfew (in and of itself) impairs self defense rights in Wisconsin.

Well, it may not be as illegal as breaking into a house, but it is less legal than walking around on a normal day, so I'd think it would be a factor. I agree it won't, by itself, negate self-defense.

Violating curfew is a misdemeanor. Illegally possessing and transporting an AR-15 across state lines on the other hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: to

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

One of those limited restrictions being that you have to be 18, which he isn't.

So why isn't this open and shut felonh murder? Self defense is irrelevent when there's a felony being committed

Okay, I just looked it up. Wisconsin law says a person committing an unlawful act (17 year old open carrying) that provoked an attack may still claim self defense if the unlawful actor (17 year old) withdraws from the fight. Shooter turning his back and running away from the first person before shooting is probably going to save his ass here.

1. “the fight” would need to be a proportionate use of force. Unarmed person chasing you is not proportionate excuse to fire an AR-15
2. He is not licensed to open carry in WI as an IL resident. Brought a fire arm across state lines.

I think he’s still f#cked. And I hope this menace goes away for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the shooter had different-colored skin, the third victim would have been deemed a hero by the right for trying to disarm him with his own concealed Glock. The second victim would have been deemed a hero for trying to take him down with his skateboard.

Curious who the kid called after he killed the first person. And can you really KILL someone for grabbing you?! (We also don't know what happened before the video started)

And that was a plastic grocery bag with a light-ish object in it. It wasn't on fire and it certainly wasn't a Molotov cocktail.

I won’t speculate on Your other comments. The bag was on fire and look at how it flattened out and skidded when it hit the ground. That’s consistent with a liquid in the bag. Is your theory that somebody threw garbage at him while chasing him and then continued to chase him after the first shot?

Like I said above, people will see what they want to see (including me).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the shooter had different-colored skin, the third victim would have been deemed a hero by the right for trying to disarm him with his own concealed Glock. The second victim would have been deemed a hero for trying to take him down with his skateboard.

Curious who the kid called after he killed the first person. And can you really KILL someone for grabbing you?! (We also don't know what happened before the video started)

And that was a plastic grocery bag with a light-ish object in it. It wasn't on fire and it certainly wasn't a Molotov cocktail.

I won’t speculate on Your other comments. The bag was on fire and look at how it flattened out and skidded when it hit the ground. That’s consistent with a liquid in the bag. Is your theory that somebody threw garbage at him while chasing him and then continued to chase him after the first shot?

Like I said above, people will see what they want to see (including me).

If only Kyle had been following the law...

Wonder what wil happen to his dad. A cop who knowingly committed a felony that directly led to multiple deaths.

[Anonymous]

Dad is going to need to lawyer up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: to

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

One of those limited restrictions being that you have to be 18, which he isn't.

So why isn't this open and shut felonh murder? Self defense is irrelevent when there's a felony being committed

Okay, I just looked it up. Wisconsin law says a person committing an unlawful act (17 year old open carrying) that provoked an attack may still claim self defense if the unlawful actor (17 year old) withdraws from the fight. Shooter turning his back and running away from the first person before shooting is probably going to save his ass here.

1. “the fight” would need to be a proportionate use of force. Unarmed person chasing you is not proportionate excuse to fire an AR-15
2. He is not licensed to open carry in WI as an IL resident. Brought a fire arm across state lines.

I think he’s still f#cked. And I hope this menace goes away for a long time.

Your number 1 is not correct. The proportionality required is not based on weapons. He simply needed to reasonably believe that his life was in imminent danger or that he was about to suffer grave bodily harm. He’ll claim he saw the person light the device on fire, throw it at him and continue to chase him. I think most reasonable people would fear for their lives or grave bodily harm in such A scenario.

He’ll rightly get popped on the illegal open carrying and unexpected the’ll be shown no mercy on that charge.

I am confused by some do the posts here. Shooter was clearly running away before the first shooting. I guess posters on here hate him so much that no credit is being given to him for clearly trying to withdraw. Don’t get me wrong: he shouldn’t have been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but once he tried to wave that should have been the end of it for everyone.

[Anonymous]

where was Kyle radicalized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: to

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

One of those limited restrictions being that you have to be 18, which he isn't.

So why isn't this open and shut felonh murder? Self defense is irrelevent when there's a felony being committed

Carrying an assault weapon in the midst of a tense protest is a form of natural selection.

Okay, I just looked it up. Wisconsin law says a person committing an unlawful act (17 year old open carrying) that provoked an attack may still claim self defense if the unlawful actor (17 year old) withdraws from the fight. Shooter turning his back and running away from the first person before shooting is probably going to save his ass here.

1. “the fight” would need to be a proportionate use of force. Unarmed person chasing you is not proportionate excuse to fire an AR-15
2. He is not licensed to open carry in WI as an IL resident. Brought a fire arm across state lines.

I think he’s still f#cked. And I hope this menace goes away for a long time.

Your number 1 is not correct. The proportionality required is not based on weapons. He simply needed to reasonably believe that his life was in imminent danger or that he was about to suffer grave bodily harm. He’ll claim he saw the person light the device on fire, throw it at him and continue to chase him. I think most reasonable people would fear for their lives or grave bodily harm in such A scenario.

He’ll rightly get popped on the illegal open carrying and unexpected the’ll be shown no mercy on that charge.

I am confused by some do the posts here. Shooter was clearly running away before the first shooting. I guess posters on here hate him so much that no credit is being given to him for clearly trying to withdraw. Don’t get me wrong: he shouldn’t have been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but once he tried to wave that should have been the end of it for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Carrying an assault weapon in the midst of a tense protest is a form of natural selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the shooter had different-colored skin, the third victim would have been deemed a hero by the right for trying to disarm him with his own concealed Glock. The second victim would have been deemed a hero for trying to take him down with his skateboard.

Curious who the kid called after he killed the first person. And can you really KILL someone for grabbing you?! (We also don't know what happened before the video started)

And that was a plastic grocery bag with a light-ish object in it. It wasn't on fire and it certainly wasn't a Molotov cocktail.

I won’t speculate on Your other comments. The bag was on fire and look at how it flattened out and skidded when it hit the ground. That’s consistent with a liquid in the bag. Is your theory that somebody threw garbage at him while chasing him and then continued to chase him after the first shot?

Like I said above, people will see what they want to see (including me).

If only Kyle had been following the law...

Wonder what wil happen to his dad. A cop who knowingly committed a felony that directly led to multiple deaths.

If only the people shot had been following the law....

As for his dad, a lot of it will depend on whether Kyle is convicted or not. Think of it this way: if Kyle’s dad gave minor Kyle a gun and minor Kyle killed two home intruders in his home, nothing would happen to his dad. All of this is going to come down to whether Kyle was acting in self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the shooter had different-colored skin, the third victim would have been deemed a hero by the right for trying to disarm him with his own concealed Glock. The second victim would have been deemed a hero for trying to take him down with his skateboard.

Curious who the kid called after he killed the first person. And can you really KILL someone for grabbing you?! (We also don't know what happened before the video started)

And that was a plastic grocery bag with a light-ish object in it. It wasn't on fire and it certainly wasn't a Molotov cocktail.

I won’t speculate on Your other comments. The bag was on fire and look at how it flattened out and skidded when it hit the ground. That’s consistent with a liquid in the bag. Is your theory that somebody threw garbage at him while chasing him and then continued to chase him after the first shot?

Like I said above, people will see what they want to see (including me).

If only Kyle had been following the law...

Wonder what wil happen to his dad. A cop who knowingly committed a felony that directly led to multiple deaths.

If only the people shot had been following the law....

As for his dad, a lot of it will depend on whether Kyle is convicted or not. Think of it this way: if Kyle’s dad gave minor Kyle a gun and minor Kyle killed two home intruders in his home, nothing would happen to his dad. All of this is going to come down to whether Kyle was acting in self defense.

He illegally transported an illegal gun across state lines and fled the scene. Self-dfense doesn't even come into play because he committed multiple felonies just being there while armed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the shooter had different-colored skin, the third victim would have been deemed a hero by the right for trying to disarm him with his own concealed Glock. The second victim would have been deemed a hero for trying to take him down with his skateboard.

Curious who the kid called after he killed the first person. And can you really KILL someone for grabbing you?! (We also don't know what happened before the video started)

And that was a plastic grocery bag with a light-ish object in it. It wasn't on fire and it certainly wasn't a Molotov cocktail.

I won’t speculate on Your other comments. The bag was on fire and look at how it flattened out and skidded when it hit the ground. That’s consistent with a liquid in the bag. Is your theory that somebody threw garbage at him while chasing him and then continued to chase him after the first shot?

Like I said above, people will see what they want to see (including me).

If only Kyle had been following the law...

Wonder what wil happen to his dad. A cop who knowingly committed a felony that directly led to multiple deaths.

If only the people shot had been following the law....

As for his dad, a lot of it will depend on whether Kyle is convicted or not. Think of it this way: if Kyle’s dad gave minor Kyle a gun and minor Kyle killed two home intruders in his home, nothing would happen to his dad. All of this is going to come down to whether Kyle was acting in self defense.

He illegally transported an illegal gun across state lines and fled the scene. Self-dfense doesn't even come into play because he committed multiple felonies just being there while armed.

Why would someone travel to another state’s protest armed unless you planned on killing someone? He was planning on killing protesters. He is a terrorist and should be charged as a terrorist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the videos of Rittenhouse shooting 3 people. He is emotionless, almost like a robot. You can see the life extinguish from the eyes of those who are murdered. It is so sad.

He will be convicted of 2nd degree murder because he violated the escalation of force. The first person he killed was chasing him on foot. A civilian can’t just start shooting someone who is chasing you. The person had no weapon. Further, Rittenhouse was dressed like every other mass shooter. How is anyone supposed to know he’s not there to harm everyone?

Rittenhouse then runs about a block from the first shooting. He is being pursued by a crowd BECAUSE HE JUST MURDERED someone. That’s why they are trying to disarm him. Once he is on the ground he starts firing without any control of his weapon. He kills one person trying to retreat. He hits another in the arm who has pulled out a concealed handgun.

In short, Rittenhouse is going to jail. “Self defense” for a civilian is a much higher threshold than the police. It does not allow you to kill someone who has no weapon and is multiple feet away from you.

Whomever brainwashed this child into a killing monster should be held responsible.

I think this post really shows the impact of framing the issues.

1. You leave out that the first person killed had just thrown a Molotov cocktail (or other homemade incendiary device at the shooter) and chased the shooter into a semi-trapped corner.

2. The second Person who died was swinging a skateboard at the shooter’s head while shooter was on the ground.

3. The third person he shot appears to have probably had a handgun approaching the shooter who was still on the ground.

I’m not sure how you can watch the videos and argue that shooter escalated force. Why the second and third party shot were chasing the shooter who appears to have been retreating is irrelevant.

I’ll bet he gets offers for free defense counsel because some defense lawyer will see this as a strong case and an ability to make a reputation as defense counsel.

He still violated escalation of force in #1. The victim had thrown a piece of garbage on fire at Rittenhouse in one part of the parking lot. He missed and victim proceeded to chase. Rittenhouse shot the victim - who was wearing no shirt and had no weapon in his hands - on the other side of the parking lots. Easily 40-60 feet away from the thrown garbage.

Rittenhouse clearly violates escalation of force. He shot an unarmed man. That isn’t self defense.

Victims #2 and 3 are witnesses to a murder and attempt to disarm Rittenhouse, who had run directly into a crowded protest. Why should they not use every means available to disarm him?

Further, the skateboard victim was in retreat when he was shot. He’s easily 15-20 feet away from Rittenhouse and is killed while moving away from the assailiant. Again, this a violation of escalation of force AND not a legitimate self-defense argument as the victim was in retreat.

Rittenhouse deserves a lengthy sentence. He is a monster.

1. It’s three seconds from where the first person throws the incendiary device (it was clearly more than just garbage, garbage on fire doesn’t fly that far) to when the guy is shot. Not only , but that the guy continued to chase shooter who was clearly retreating and posed no threat (shooter hadn’t fired yet). You can argue escalation of force there, but I’m telling you that defense counsel loves the position they are in on the first shooting.

2. Witnesses don’t have a right to pursue and disarm by any means necessary someone who is retreating. Especially once shooter was on the ground. Skateboard victim was not in retreat. His momentum was carrying him in a direction after missing the shooter. The sound seems to indicate he was shot at point blank range and he *collapses* 12-15 feet away. But he was shot at point blank range.

I could see room for some disagreement here, but not even acknowledging that he has a colorable case of self defense suggests bias to me. People will see what they want to see (including me), but my guess is that defense counsel would love to have this case.

The skateboard guy was trying to take the weapon out of the shooters hands. If you look closely you can see that he has ahold of the gun strap. All the people saying that he was shot retreating and 15 feet away are mistaken. He was shot point blank while pulling on the strap.