Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Gaige Grosskreutz had zero reason to be there. Gaige Grosskreutz illegally brought an unlawful gun to a BLM protest so he could star in his own first person shooter game. Everything that happened is Gaige Grosskreutz fault.

I think we have a lot of pathetic, angry little deluded, paranoid FaceBook dupes in this country, who lack any critical thinking skills. This is not a precedent that sadly already exists in this country. You Gaige Grosskreutz defenders are some seriously sick puppies.

If what you say is true, then he should be tried and convicted too. Kyle Rittenhouse also should be tried and convicted.

You Trumpers are the party of no-responsibility for any actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Gaige Grosskreutz had zero reason to be there. Gaige Grosskreutz illegally brought an unlawful gun to a BLM protest so he could star in his own first person shooter game. Everything that happened is Gaige Grosskreutz fault.

I think we have a lot of pathetic, angry little deluded, paranoid FaceBook dupes in this country, who lack any critical thinking skills. This is not a precedent that sadly already exists in this country. You Gaige Grosskreutz defenders are some seriously sick puppies.

If what you say is true, then he should be tried and convicted too. Kyle Rittenhouse also should be tried and convicted.

You Trumpers are the party of no-responsibility for any actions.

Tried and convicted for defending himself?
Have you watched ANY of the trial? Have you read ANY of the testimony?
Do you not understand the concept of self defense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Gaige Grosskreutz had zero reason to be there. Gaige Grosskreutz illegally brought an unlawful gun to a BLM protest so he could star in his own first person shooter game. Everything that happened is Gaige Grosskreutz fault.

I think we have a lot of pathetic, angry little deluded, paranoid FaceBook dupes in this country, who lack any critical thinking skills. This is not a precedent that sadly already exists in this country. You Gaige Grosskreutz defenders are some seriously sick puppies.

If what you say is true, then he should be tried and convicted too. Kyle Rittenhouse also should be tried and convicted.

You Trumpers are the party of no-responsibility for any actions.

Tried and convicted for defending himself?
Have you watched ANY of the trial? Have you read ANY of the testimony?
Do you not understand the concept of self defense?

Hunting humans is self defense? …lol

[Anonymous]

Wether you believe he had a "right" to be there or not, his defense is self defense. Now look at what the prosecution witnesses have said, not the defense witnesses, but the people arguing it was not self defense.

Victim #1 had threatened to kill him earlier that day and was in the process of trying to take his gun away, when he was shot.

Victim #2 had him in a vulnerable position and was trying to hit him with a deadly weapon when he was shot.

Victim #3 was pointing his own gun at him in a crouched position when he was shot.

That’s is what the prosecution says are the facts. Which one of those 3 would you say is not self defense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wether you believe he had a "right" to be there or not, his defense is self defense. Now look at what the prosecution witnesses have said, not the defense witnesses, but the people arguing it was not self defense.

Victim #1 had threatened to kill him earlier that day and was in the process of trying to take his gun away, when he was shot.

Victim #2 had him in a vulnerable position and was trying to hit him with a deadly weapon when he was shot.

Victim #3 was pointing his own gun at him in a crouched position when he was shot.

That’s is what the prosecution says are the facts. Which one of those 3 would you say is not self defense?

Somehow, his claim of fear of death or bodily injury has outweighed the other people's fear of death or bodily injury, even though, objectively speaking, their fear was justified.

Curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wether you believe he had a "right" to be there or not, his defense is self defense. Now look at what the prosecution witnesses have said, not the defense witnesses, but the people arguing it was not self defense.

Victim #1 had threatened to kill him earlier that day and was in the process of trying to take his gun away, when he was shot.

Victim #2 had him in a vulnerable position and was trying to hit him with a deadly weapon when he was shot.

Victim #3 was pointing his own gun at him in a crouched position when he was shot.

That’s is what the prosecution says are the facts. Which one of those 3 would you say is not self defense?

Yes he randomly shot people. So it is called murder not self defense. If a family of one of the victims waits for Kyle outside the courthouse and kills him in your mind that is self defense?

[Anonymous]

Look Kyle will shoot anyone he thinks is a threat to him. I really do not know what triggers this reaction. So if you saw Kyle walking down the street should you shoot before he shoots you? The answer is yes and it would be self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wether you believe he had a "right" to be there or not, his defense is self defense. Now look at what the prosecution witnesses have said, not the defense witnesses, but the people arguing it was not self defense.

Victim #1 had threatened to kill him earlier that day and was in the process of trying to take his gun away, when he was shot.

Victim #2 had him in a vulnerable position and was trying to hit him with a deadly weapon when he was shot.

Victim #3 was pointing his own gun at him in a crouched position when he was shot.

That’s is what the prosecution says are the facts. Which one of those 3 would you say is not self defense?

Well, he’s a republican!

So that’s why he should be convicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wether you believe he had a "right" to be there or not, his defense is self defense. Now look at what the prosecution witnesses have said, not the defense witnesses, but the people arguing it was not self defense.

Victim #1 had threatened to kill him earlier that day and was in the process of trying to take his gun away, when he was shot.

Victim #2 had him in a vulnerable position and was trying to hit him with a deadly weapon when he was shot.

Victim #3 was pointing his own gun at him in a crouched position when he was shot.

That’s is what the prosecution says are the facts. Which one of those 3 would you say is not self defense?

Yes he randomly shot people. So it is called murder not self defense. If a family of one of the victims waits for Kyle outside the courthouse and kills him in your mind that is self defense?

Which one of those 3 did he randomly shoot? They’re the only ones he shot.

[Anonymous]

So when someone starts shooting, people run away. But in our modern era of common mass shootings, you're supposed to rush the shooter, possibly sacrificing your life to save everyone else.

If the shooter shoots the people rushing him, does he claim self defense? Should he?

[Anonymous]

I swear people here seem to think he was walking down the street just shooting people for fun as opposed to shooting 3 people that were attacking him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wether you believe he had a "right" to be there or not, his defense is self defense. Now look at what the prosecution witnesses have said, not the defense witnesses, but the people arguing it was not self defense.

Victim #1 had threatened to kill him earlier that day and was in the process of trying to take his gun away, when he was shot.

Victim #2 had him in a vulnerable position and was trying to hit him with a deadly weapon when he was shot.

Victim #3 was pointing his own gun at him in a crouched position when he was shot.

That’s is what the prosecution says are the facts. Which one of those 3 would you say is not self defense?

Yes he randomly shot people. So it is called murder not self defense. If a family of one of the victims waits for Kyle outside the courthouse and kills him in your mind that is self defense?

Which one of those 3 did he randomly shoot? They’re the only ones he shot.

They're the only ones anyone shot. People were burning dumpsters, robbing stores, but the only people shot and killed were shot and killed by Rittenhouse.

A regular Jack Reacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I swear people here seem to think he was walking down the street just shooting people for fun as opposed to shooting 3 people that were attacking him.

So you wouldn't rush the shooter. You would blame anyone who did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wether you believe he had a "right" to be there or not, his defense is self defense. Now look at what the prosecution witnesses have said, not the defense witnesses, but the people arguing it was not self defense.

Victim #1 had threatened to kill him earlier that day and was in the process of trying to take his gun away, when he was shot.

Victim #2 had him in a vulnerable position and was trying to hit him with a deadly weapon when he was shot.

Victim #3 was pointing his own gun at him in a crouched position when he was shot.

That’s is what the prosecution says are the facts. Which one of those 3 would you say is not self defense?

Victims 2 and 3 saw Rittenhouse shoot victim #1 without knowing that victim #1 had threatened Rittenhouse earlier. They believed they were protecting life by stopping an active shooter, so I can’t really blame them for going after Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse felt the need to defend himself from people who were trying to stop him from getting away with killing someone. I’m conflicted because self defense is legal, but Rittenhouse having the ability to shoot people wasn’t, and he would never have taken on these rioters without the sense of security the rifle gave him. Had he obeyed the law, none of these people would have been shot. I don’t think I want a court to rule that once you’ve shot someone for attempting to disarm you of your illegal weapon, you are free to shoot anyone else who tries to stop you, with impunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I swear people here seem to think he was walking down the street just shooting people for fun as opposed to shooting 3 people that were attacking him.

Because this is the way the mainstream media has portrayed this case. They have NOT given facts. They have published clickbait headlines that are so false it is comedic.
So, anyone following left wing media or left wing twitter is incredibly uninformed.

Rittenhouse has a strong case for slander.