Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Why was he being attacked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why was he being attacked?

So that he could claim self-defense. Obvs.

[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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

[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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

Yeah as a native Minnesotan who saw my hometown get completely wrecked by out of staters with no consequence, gonna guess that point is moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

Yeah as a native Minnesotan who saw my hometown get completely wrecked by out of staters with no consequence, gonna guess that point is moot.

Maybe send the proud boys a bill.

[Anonymous]

Many of the Koreans who shot people during the LA riots trying to protect themselves and their businesses violated gun laws. At least one had an uzi. But I don’t think any of them were ever charged?

[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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

What legitimate business did the looter have? Just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

Yeah as a native Minnesotan who saw my hometown get completely wrecked by out of staters with no consequence, gonna guess that point is moot.

Maybe send the proud boys a bill.

Was it the proud boys who wrecked Minnesota?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

What legitimate business did the looter have? Just curious.

Apparently the liberal politicians had ordered the police to stand down giving them free reign to burn down whatever part of the city they wished. Unfortunately some businesses enlisted private citizens for protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

What legitimate business did the looter have? Just curious.

Probably none, but we can’t ask him because he’s dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

agree - it is not helping that all the video I have seen of the kid depicts a pretty genial kid . He doesn’t appear to be picking or courting conflict. Seems to me like a kid who totally overestimated his capabilities, wanted to be heroic and important and underestimated the seriousness of the situation in which he put himself.

What’s he courting here?

What a different image than the earnest young man he is portraying on the stand!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

What legitimate business did the looter have? Just curious.

Probably none, but we can’t ask him because he’s dead.

Well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

Yeah as a native Minnesotan who saw my hometown get completely wrecked by out of staters with no consequence, gonna guess that point is moot.

Maybe send the proud boys a bill.

Because you think white extremists should pay for Antifa’s destruction? Confused about your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate business being on the streets of Kenosha with a gun.

Yeah as a native Minnesotan who saw my hometown get completely wrecked by out of staters with no consequence, gonna guess that point is moot.

Maybe send the proud boys a bill.

Because you think white extremists should pay for Antifa’s destruction? Confused about your point.

Proud boys are the terrorists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of the Koreans who shot people during the LA riots trying to protect themselves and their businesses violated gun laws. At least one had an uzi. But I don’t think any of them were ever charged?

Eh, good for them.