Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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?

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.

Yes. My fear of death of bodily injury will always take primacy over other’s fear of death or bodily injury - especially so when those others are armed and literally chasing me and threatening to kill me *despite* my being visibly armed with a rifle.

If you want to play stupid games, I’ll be happy to award stupid prizes. At some point after I’ve shot a sufficient number of them in self defense, the rest will realize it’s a bad idea to keep trying to murder me.

[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?

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.

Their fear was not objectively justified. KR shot someone who attacked him. KR was running away. How was their fear objectively justified?

[Anonymous]

Curious why some people are so eager to rush to judgment on this case and seem so certain of the accused’s motives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious why some people are so eager to rush to judgment on this case and seem so certain of the accused’s motives.

People are judging him for being there. He went looking for trouble and found it.

[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?

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.

Yes. My fear of death of bodily injury will always take primacy over other’s fear of death or bodily injury - especially so when those others are armed and literally chasing me and threatening to kill me *despite* my being visibly armed with a rifle.

If you want to play stupid games, I’ll be happy to award stupid prizes. At some point after I’ve shot a sufficient number of them in self defense, the rest will realize it’s a bad idea to keep trying to murder me.

If he wasn't there illegally and brandishing a weapon, none of this would have happened. He took his videogaming to reality and people died. He made a bad choice and needs to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious why some people are so eager to rush to judgment on this case and seem so certain of the accused’s motives.

Because most 17 year olds don't cross state lines with an illegal weapon to go to an area that is in the middle of civil unrest. He effed around and now he should fine out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious why some people are so eager to rush to judgment on this case and seem so certain of the accused’s motives.

A dumb kid went into a crowd with a gun and a vigilante fantasy. The fact that he got scared when people objected to his armed presence doesn’t change the fact that he initiated the situation and the conflict. The police also are at fault for not sending the dumb armed kid home.

[Anonymous]

The level of hate directed at the actions of an innocent child is truly shocking!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The level of hate directed at the actions of an innocent child is truly shocking!

Seems like a very pro-looter, pro-rioter crowd on this thread…..interesting.

[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?

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.

Their fear was not objectively justified. KR shot someone who attacked him. KR was running away. How was their fear objectively justified?

+1

I really can’t take anyone seriously who claims that someone has “fear” of an armed person while they are literally hunting that person down. People who have “fear” stay away. Don’t chase him down and gang up on him and draw down on him after he’s already made it clear that he’s not going to shoot you if you don’t attack him. (And yes, the star witness for the prosecution made that very clear in court if you actually listen to the testimony rather than just spouting your ignorant opinions.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The level of hate directed at the actions of an innocent child is truly shocking!

Seems like a very pro-looter, pro-rioter crowd on this thread…..interesting.

It’s a very left wing website. It’s infuriating a lot of the time but interesting to see how these people think (i.e. they just don’t).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The level of hate directed at the actions of an innocent child is truly shocking!

Seems like a very pro-looter, pro-rioter crowd on this thread…..interesting.

It’s a very left wing website. It’s infuriating a lot of the time but interesting to see how these people think (i.e. they just don’t).

Well they present as utter imbeciles by making declarative statements about things they know nothing about.

[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?

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.

Their fear was not objectively justified. KR shot someone who attacked him. KR was running away. How was their fear objectively justified?

Because 2 of the 3 victims viewed him as an active shooter, said they tried to stop him. You’re allowed to go after someone to protect others. They went after him for the same reason he brought a gun to protect people in the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Their fear was not objectively justified. KR shot someone who attacked him. KR was running away. How was their fear objectively justified?

Because 2 of the 3 victims viewed him as an active shooter, said they tried to stop him. You’re allowed to go after someone to protect others. They went after him for the same reason he brought a gun to protect people in the community.

The word on n bold was supposed to be “and.”

[Anonymous]

Rittenhouse is now testifying and he just pretended to break down crying while describing the first shooting. I'm a lawyer and he's very well-prepared and, to me, rehearsed. I'll be interested to find out if the jury is buying it.