Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope cancel culture eats Rittenhouse alive if he isn’t prosecuted. Also the prosecutor sucks! How can a vigilante not be prosecuted?! Rittenhouse is pure garbage.

RWNJs look out for each other.

True, earlier Rittenhouse fled and his lawyer lied about his whereabouts and it was all good. SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best outcome right now is a mistrial and then moving the venue to another city for the re-trial.

The fact that he's charged with intentional 1st degree murder but not manslaughter is just insane. WTF?

It really feels like the prosecutor's office is trying to throw the trial. Manslaughter is a much easier threshold to guilty, but the prosecution doesn't charge it? The fix is in, folks.

Best outcome is acquittal. He defended himself. He is not guilty of murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope cancel culture eats Rittenhouse alive if he isn’t prosecuted. Also the prosecutor sucks! How can a vigilante not be prosecuted?! Rittenhouse is pure garbage.

This is how you folks operate. Take him down by social media mob. Cancel him by all means possible. Forget the fact that he is innocent of the charges.

The majority of American people find your attitude disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor is terrible and deserves to lose. And that stinks. It is very sad and I think he likely deserves some kind of second degree murder but it needs to be a clean trial and the prosecutor is flagrantly defying the judge. It is crazy.

The prosecutor should be disbarred for simultaneously wearing a lapel pin, tie bar, AND pocket square. Way to much flare for a criminal trial. Halloween is over kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't get it. The prosecution can show he lied. That he cheated on his girlfriend. That he stole money from his mom. It is not probative of his intent that night. It is not probative of state of mind when he pulled the trigger. Bad guy does not equal murderer.

He did administer first aid. He did have a first aid bag. Those two things are true as well. But they are also not probative of his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.

What is probative is people following him. People not simply threatening him but striking him, pointing a gun at him etc.

Welcome to law school evidence class. Some facts are true but not probative or germane. This is akin to when rapists got off because they convinced the jury the girl was a slut. Now that is no longer admissible evidence because it is irrelevant to determining whether a woman consented to sex with a rapist.

Again, it is complicated and this prosecutor is awful.

This is an understatement.
And, many of us knew the prosecutor was awful even before this trial began. The fact that he charged this person with crimes, given the evidence that has been presented is unforgivable.

He had to charge or the mob would have burned down the town.

Sorry. That is not an excuse. Having a blatantly innocent person serve as a sacrificial lamb to keep the mob at bay is not acceptable. At all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't get it. The prosecution can show he lied. That he cheated on his girlfriend. That he stole money from his mom. It is not probative of his intent that night. It is not probative of state of mind when he pulled the trigger. Bad guy does not equal murderer.

He did administer first aid. He did have a first aid bag. Those two things are true as well. But they are also not probative of his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.

What is probative is people following him. People not simply threatening him but striking him, pointing a gun at him etc.

Welcome to law school evidence class. Some facts are true but not probative or germane. This is akin to when rapists got off because they convinced the jury the girl was a slut. Now that is no longer admissible evidence because it is irrelevant to determining whether a woman consented to sex with a rapist.

Again, it is complicated and this prosecutor is awful.

This is an understatement.
And, many of us knew the prosecutor was awful even before this trial began. The fact that he charged this person with crimes, given the evidence that has been presented is unforgivable.

He had to charge or the mob would have burned down the town.

Sorry. That is not an excuse. Having a blatantly innocent person serve as a sacrificial lamb to keep the mob at bay is not acceptable. At all.

No, that's not acceptable. What blatantly innocent person are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope cancel culture eats Rittenhouse alive if he isn’t prosecuted. Also the prosecutor sucks! How can a vigilante not be prosecuted?! Rittenhouse is pure garbage.

This is how you folks operate. Take him down by social media mob. Cancel him by all means possible. Forget the fact that he is innocent of the charges.

The majority of American people find your attitude disgusting.

He killed someone…it’s not like he voted for the infrastructure bill.

[Anonymous]

The judge is senile and the defense is convincing him that pinching and zooming on an iPad distorts an image and changes it.

This is not normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know the judge is biased - right from the get-go refusing to allow the people Rittenhouse shot as 'victims' and we also have this whackadoo prosecutor half the time arguing FOR Rittenhouse and setting his own witnesses up rather than prosecuting Rittenhouse. Complete sham of a trial.

I know! He is completely biased.

Ummm by definition he is NOT biased. This trial is literally to figure out who is the victim.

The fact that you call the judge “biased” for simply not being biased towards you is unbecoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you point a gun at someone, they have a right to shoot you. Legally and morally.

Why are we still discussing this? It seems like a fairly straightforward case.

-NP

Really? I kind of doubt that's actually the law. For a hypo, say a student goes into a school with a gun and shoots another student. A teacher who happens to have a gun pulls it out, points it at the student with the gun, and shouts at him to put the gun down or he'll shoot. The student fires at the teacher and kills him. Is this self-defense? It seems kind of relevant to me that the student instigated the violence and the teacher was reacting to that. I don't know what Wisconsin law is, but I'd be pretty surprised if the student had a valid self-defense claim (and if he did, the law really needs to be changed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge is senile and the defense is convincing him that pinching and zooming on an iPad distorts an image and changes it.

This is not normal.

He’s a former prosecutor and was appointed by a Democrat governor. He’s one of yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already know the judge is biased - right from the get-go refusing to allow the people Rittenhouse shot as 'victims' and we also have this whackadoo prosecutor half the time arguing FOR Rittenhouse and setting his own witnesses up rather than prosecuting Rittenhouse. Complete sham of a trial.

I know! He is completely biased.

Ummm by definition he is NOT biased. This trial is literally to figure out who is the victim.

The fact that you call the judge “biased” for simply not being biased towards you is unbecoming.

The judge already determined the dead guys are not the victims. So there's that.

[Anonymous]

They should have charged him with manslaughter or reckless endangerment. He needs to be convicted of some lesser defense just to indicate to would-be yahoos that rushing to protests carrying AR 15s in order to look for trouble is not a good thing. Letting him walk just perpetuates the vigilantism that has increasingly infected white men, and was seen in full force on January 6th at the Capitol. Jeff (I think . . ) said this on another thread---society has not yet processed how to deal with violent and flagrantly law-breaking middle class white offenders. But we need to get there, and get there quick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you point a gun at someone, they have a right to shoot you. Legally and morally.

Why are we still discussing this? It seems like a fairly straightforward case.

-NP

Really? I kind of doubt that's actually the law. For a hypo, say a student goes into a school with a gun and shoots another student. A teacher who happens to have a gun pulls it out, points it at the student with the gun, and shouts at him to put the gun down or he'll shoot. The student fires at the teacher and kills him. Is this self-defense? It seems kind of relevant to me that the student instigated the violence and the teacher was reacting to that. I don't know what Wisconsin law is, but I'd be pretty surprised if the student had a valid self-defense claim (and if he did, the law really needs to be changed).

Rittenhouse pointed his gun at a lot of people that night. Everyone he pointed the gun at can now shoot him. Makes sense in nutworld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is senile and the defense is convincing him that pinching and zooming on an iPad distorts an image and changes it.

This is not normal.

He’s a former prosecutor and was appointed by a Democrat governor. He’s one of yours.

He was appointed in 1983. You don't know what he believes today.