Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here, because R plead self defense, the prosecutor has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof on the prosecutor is not so convince them they R did it. R stipulated to that by pleading self defense. Given all the strife and violence in the videos, I think convincing them beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense is an incredibly high bar.

So you can show up to a protest with an AR, kill a couple of protesters, and then get off? ‘Murica truly is the greatest country in the world

If violent revolutionary rioters and arsonists attack you and then try to kill you while you're (perhaps naively) trying to prevent mayhem and arson, yes.

[Anonymous]

It blows my mind that the prosecutor didn't ask for a manslaughter charge. 1st degree murder is clearly inappropriate in all three cases. 2nd degree murder is still a high bar and probably can only get there in the Rosenbaum case.

Manslaughter would be a pretty easy hurdle for the two deaths, given disproportionate use of force.

Why the ever-hell did the prosecution not put forth a manslaughter charge? It makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that the prosecutor didn't ask for a manslaughter charge. 1st degree murder is clearly inappropriate in all three cases. 2nd degree murder is still a high bar and probably can only get there in the Rosenbaum case.

Manslaughter would be a pretty easy hurdle for the two deaths, given disproportionate use of force.

Why the ever-hell did the prosecution not put forth a manslaughter charge? It makes zero sense.

He's incompetent and was attempting to soothe the mob. That never ends well.
Manslaughter would be a stretch as well since he was defending himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that the prosecutor didn't ask for a manslaughter charge. 1st degree murder is clearly inappropriate in all three cases. 2nd degree murder is still a high bar and probably can only get there in the Rosenbaum case.

Manslaughter would be a pretty easy hurdle for the two deaths, given disproportionate use of force.

Why the ever-hell did the prosecution not put forth a manslaughter charge? It makes zero sense.

Self dense applies to manslaughter, too. This case was always going to turn on self defense. Highly improbable that the jury answers “no” on self defense and “not guilty” on Murder1. So might as well go for broke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that the prosecutor didn't ask for a manslaughter charge. 1st degree murder is clearly inappropriate in all three cases. 2nd degree murder is still a high bar and probably can only get there in the Rosenbaum case.

Manslaughter would be a pretty easy hurdle for the two deaths, given disproportionate use of force.

Why the ever-hell did the prosecution not put forth a manslaughter charge? It makes zero sense.

He's incompetent and was attempting to soothe the mob. That never ends well.
Manslaughter would be a stretch as well since he was defending himself.

There is no way this guy is that incompetent! They aren’t really prosecuting him. It’s a “trial” and all for show.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that the prosecutor didn't ask for a manslaughter charge. 1st degree murder is clearly inappropriate in all three cases. 2nd degree murder is still a high bar and probably can only get there in the Rosenbaum case.

Manslaughter would be a pretty easy hurdle for the two deaths, given disproportionate use of force.

Why the ever-hell did the prosecution not put forth a manslaughter charge? It makes zero sense.

He's incompetent and was attempting to soothe the mob. That never ends well.
Manslaughter would be a stretch as well since he was defending himself.

There is no way this guy is that incompetent! They aren’t really prosecuting him. It’s a “trial” and all for show.

He’s doing the best with what he has, which is nothing. The first guy threatened to kill KR and then chased him down and started to take his rifle. All this while KR had previously turned and pointed the gun to try to slow him down (WITHOUT shooting) but the attacker literally just kept running at him. KR only shot him after he’d been caught and had nowhere else to run.

The second guy had a deadly weapon (skateboard) and was attacking him with it.

The third guy also chased KR down, completely undeterred by the firearm he was obviously holding, and pointed a concealed handgun in his face while KR was offbalance flat on his butt in the middle of the street. KR didn’t shoot him prior to that even when he had the opportunity to do so, and only fired when he had a concealed weapon brought out and put in his face, clearly directed at him.

All 3 cases are clearly self defense. I’m not saying the kid isn’t dumb, every single person at that riot was dumb. But he was acting legally in self defense.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think Rittenhouse felt like he would be safe out on the streets among the rioters without arming himself. He couldn’t legally carry a gun. All 3 of these shootings stem from his crime of illegally toting a rifle to the chaos in the streets. Had he not broken that law, he likely wouldn’t have been there in the first place, but even if he had gone there sans rifle, none of these shootings would have happened. It seems like someone who set into motion a series of events that culminated in 3 people getting shot and two of them dying should face a stronger penalty than someone who carried a gun illegally, but didn’t shoot anyone.

[Anonymous]

oh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Rittenhouse felt like he would be safe out on the streets among the rioters without arming himself. He couldn’t legally carry a gun. All 3 of these shootings stem from his crime of illegally toting a rifle to the chaos in the streets. Had he not broken that law, he likely wouldn’t have been there in the first place, but even if he had gone there sans rifle, none of these shootings would have happened. It seems like someone who set into motion a series of events that culminated in 3 people getting shot and two of them dying should face a stronger penalty than someone who carried a gun illegally, but didn’t shoot anyone.

I mean the people who organized the riot set those events into motion, not KR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that the prosecutor didn't ask for a manslaughter charge. 1st degree murder is clearly inappropriate in all three cases. 2nd degree murder is still a high bar and probably can only get there in the Rosenbaum case.

Manslaughter would be a pretty easy hurdle for the two deaths, given disproportionate use of force.

Why the ever-hell did the prosecution not put forth a manslaughter charge? It makes zero sense.

He's incompetent and was attempting to soothe the mob. That never ends well.
Manslaughter would be a stretch as well since he was defending himself.

There is no way this guy is that incompetent! They aren’t really prosecuting him. It’s a “trial” and all for show.

He’s doing the best with what he has, which is nothing. The first guy threatened to kill KR and then chased him down and started to take his rifle. All this while KR had previously turned and pointed the gun to try to slow him down (WITHOUT shooting) but the attacker literally just kept running at him. KR only shot him after he’d been caught and had nowhere else to run.

The second guy had a deadly weapon (skateboard) and was attacking him with it.

The third guy also chased KR down, completely undeterred by the firearm he was obviously holding, and pointed a concealed handgun in his face while KR was offbalance flat on his butt in the middle of the street. KR didn’t shoot him prior to that even when he had the opportunity to do so, and only fired when he had a concealed weapon brought out and put in his face, clearly directed at him.

All 3 cases are clearly self defense. I’m not saying the kid isn’t dumb, every single person at that riot was dumb. But he was acting legally in self defense.

KR said he didn't think Rosenbaum was talking to him.

Etc.

Etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His parents must be embarrassed that they did such a bad job raising him. I hope they’re all pariahs in their community. Really disgraceful.

Why do I see Jeff snickering like Snerdley at these comments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Rittenhouse felt like he would be safe out on the streets among the rioters without arming himself. He couldn’t legally carry a gun. All 3 of these shootings stem from his crime of illegally toting a rifle to the chaos in the streets. Had he not broken that law, he likely wouldn’t have been there in the first place, but even if he had gone there sans rifle, none of these shootings would have happened. It seems like someone who set into motion a series of events that culminated in 3 people getting shot and two of them dying should face a stronger penalty than someone who carried a gun illegally, but didn’t shoot anyone.

I mean the people who organized the riot set those events into motion, not KR.

??? Most riots aren’t organized. Do you mean the legal protests? The people who were damaging property and looting shops were not protesting. They had their own individual agendas. They broke laws, but they didn’t shoot anyone. None of their guns were used to shoot anyone. They didn’t kill anyone. For this to unfold, Rittenhouse had to show up with a gun (illegally).

[Anonymous]

Is the person who provided the gun to Kyle facing charges?

[Anonymous]

The prosecutor just suggested that KR should have gone on letting a guy kick him in the head and stomp on his face because “it was just one foot”, “not a gun”.

Incredible.

They’ve completely lost the plot and lost the jury.