Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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.

He didn't have any interest in disarming himself either. After killing someone. He preferred the look like and act like a mass shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not in Kenosha. Everywhere else, yes.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn’t disarm in that situation. It seems like he is alive today because he had that gun. Definition of self defense.

[Anonymous]

They shouldn’t have had him take the stand. This was a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Active shooters run to the next location and continue shooting. Active shooters don’t get to run away and claim self defense.

This one does. Other ones don't.

[Anonymous]

They didn’t try to disarm him. They tried to kill him.

[Anonymous]

It was not a mistake. He is going to get manslaughter. No way he will get more.

[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.

If he was not there how many people would have died?

Zero, since Rittenhouse killed the only 2 people who died that night.

DP. I agree. And this is because a teenager has very poor judgment. This is proof right here of WHY there are underage gun laws and why a 17 year old should not be allowed to possess or use a firearm. The teenager should not have been there, and he panicked and three people were shot, two fatally.

At a minimum, he needs to be convicted on the curfew and weapons charges including the one for reckless endangering safety. He should not have been there (violating curfew), he should not have had a weapon (underaged) and because of those, and because of those mistakes of his, two people are dead. Regardless of whether he is guilty of manslaughter or not, he still violated unrelated laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t disarm in that situation. It seems like he is alive today because he had that gun. Definition of self defense.

The guy he shot had a gun. So no having a gun does not protect you. You think armed soldiers don’t get killed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They didn’t try to disarm him. They tried to kill him.

They were trying to disarm him, trying to rush the shooter.

Are you totally unfamiliar with what you're supposed to do during a shooting nowadays? You're supposed to rush the shooter.

[Anonymous]

Prosecutor is trying to hard to emphasize the AR 15. It doesn’t really matter here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor is trying to hard to emphasize the AR 15. It doesn’t really matter here.

Did everyone there have an AR 15? Or just the shooter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, this is incorrect. Barely anybody saw the actual shooting because it happened in a secluded area.

Anybody who actually did see it saw KR defending himself. Not a cold blood killing.

What you’re really trying to do is justify a mob that was attempting to unjustifiably attack KR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor is trying to hard to emphasize the AR 15. It doesn’t really matter here.

Did everyone there have an AR 15? Or just the shooter?

The point is that the shooting would have happened regardless of what gun he was using.

[Anonymous]

And it would have happened because they were attacking him and planning to kill him and he defended himself.