Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge is ridiculous. Hard to watch.

I don’t know about that, but the prosecution isn’t doing great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is ridiculous. Hard to watch.

I don’t know about that, but the prosecution isn’t doing great.

Judge is fine and instructive but this prosecutor is dreadful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wrong. You are allowed to go after someone to protect others if you reasonably believe they present an immediate, direct risk of causing serious bodily injury to others. The law is very well developed in this area and a person who is retreating (fleeing) is not viewed an immediate, direct risk of harm. Once a person is in retreat, the confrontation is over.

He never retreated. He continued to seek out targets. This is the way the gun nuts are brainwashed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is ridiculous. Hard to watch.

I don’t know about that, but the prosecution isn’t doing great.

Judge is fine and instructive but this prosecutor is dreadful.

No, the judge is extraordinarily biased, and is doing his best to help out Kyle by stopping testimony any time he gets into trouble.

[Anonymous]

He thinks he was a member of the fire department, because he helped with the pancake breakfast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wrong. You are allowed to go after someone to protect others if you reasonably believe they present an immediate, direct risk of causing serious bodily injury to others. The law is very well developed in this area and a person who is retreating (fleeing) is not viewed an immediate, direct risk of harm. Once a person is in retreat, the confrontation is over.

He never retreated. He continued to seek out targets. This is the way the gun nuts are brainwashed.

Targets were all around him. He was not interested in shooting targets. Even the witness admitted that he himself was a target but that KR didn’t have any interest in shooting him until he literally pulled out a concealed handgun and pointed it at him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is ridiculous. Hard to watch.

I don’t know about that, but the prosecution isn’t doing great.

Judge is fine and instructive but this prosecutor is dreadful.

No, the judge is extraordinarily biased, and is doing his best to help out Kyle by stopping testimony any time he gets into trouble.

Eh, the legal expert on CNN would disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He thinks he was a member of the fire department, because he helped with the pancake breakfast.

It's basically the same entitlement that enabled Ivanka to play president.

[Anonymous]

This judge is doing everything he can to protect Rittenhouse. It is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This.

Exactly. His motive is irrelevant. He participated in a riot.

So did the 3 victims, but you seem to hold them blameless.

I’ve posted nothing of the sort. I’m the “unintelligent” poster from the top. His victims don’t get any sympathy from me. They shouldn’t have been there either, but they’ve received consequences that were not Kyle’s to dispense. He needs to answer for his actions.

If you threaten to kill someone and are trying to take his gun away, the consequences are on you. That's what victim #1 did according to testimony of the people that charged him with a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wrong. You are allowed to go after someone to protect others if you reasonably believe they present an immediate, direct risk of causing serious bodily injury to others. The law is very well developed in this area and a person who is retreating (fleeing) is not viewed an immediate, direct risk of harm. Once a person is in retreat, the confrontation is over.

He never retreated. He continued to seek out targets. This is the way the gun nuts are brainwashed.

You couldn’t possibly be more wrong. The first shooting occurred. KR then ran away. The crowd chased him. They caught up to him just short of two blocks away. The second and third shootings occur. He was clearly in retreat after the first shooting (or fleeing, if you prefer). There was no legal justification for the second and third persons shot to attack KR.

[Anonymous]

Is the prosecution supposed to lay out their entire case for the judge ahead of time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You couldn’t possibly be more wrong. The first shooting occurred. KR then ran away. The crowd chased him. They caught up to him just short of two blocks away. The second and third shootings occur. He was clearly in retreat after the first shooting (or fleeing, if you prefer). There was no legal justification for the second and third persons shot to attack KR.

A bunch of people saw a kid shot a guy in cold blood...of course they chased after him. They didn't want him to get away and avoid a murder prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This.

Exactly. His motive is irrelevant. He participated in a riot.

So did the 3 victims, but you seem to hold them blameless.

I’ve posted nothing of the sort. I’m the “unintelligent” poster from the top. His victims don’t get any sympathy from me. They shouldn’t have been there either, but they’ve received consequences that were not Kyle’s to dispense. He needs to answer for his actions.

If you threaten to kill someone and are trying to take his gun away, the consequences are on you. That's what victim #1 did according to testimony of the people that charged him with a crime.

So if we witness someone shoot another person and then run away, we're not allowed to chase them and detain them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wrong. You are allowed to go after someone to protect others if you reasonably believe they present an immediate, direct risk of causing serious bodily injury to others. The law is very well developed in this area and a person who is retreating (fleeing) is not viewed an immediate, direct risk of harm. Once a person is in retreat, the confrontation is over.

He never retreated. He continued to seek out targets. This is the way the gun nuts are brainwashed.

Targets were all around him. He was not interested in shooting targets. Even the witness admitted that he himself was a target but that KR didn’t have any interest in shooting him until he literally pulled out a concealed handgun and pointed it at him.

But if that is true(Riitenhouse’s testimony cannot be believed) the man never harmed Rittenhouse. Therefore rittenhouse’s life was not endangered. Those are the facts not some kid’s fantasy. The only one targeting and shooting people was Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was the first to targeted the man with his rifle and laser designator. Obviously Rittenhouse saw pointing a weapons at someone as a threat. So by his own statement he is saying he was threatening people around him. It’s straight up murder. Rittenhouse overreacted, saw a threat were none existed and starting shooting. He was untrained, unprepared and killed someone. Premeditated murder. The state must protect its citizens from thugs like rittenhouse.