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.

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 do you think this guy was courting?

[Anonymous]

Kyle will walk from this.

Rosenbaum charged at Kyle and Kyle retreated until he was cornered by the cars. According to the aerial footage, three seconds before Kyle's shots were fired, a protestor fired a single shot into the air, adding even further basis for the defense to argue that Kyle reasonably feared for his life in shooting Rosenbaum.

Following this, Grosskreutz literally followed Rittenhouse and asked him what he was doing. When Rittenhouse said loud and clear enough to hear on video that he was going to get the police as he ran towards the line of cops at the end of the block, Grosskreutz began yelling at people to attack him and you hear others start saying "get that dude" etc. This shows very clearly how Grosskreutz and Huber's actions were in no way an immediate visceral reaction to a threat - they literally chased him as he stated he was going to the cops. As Kyle attempts to retreat towards the cops he is hit and knocked over, and as he is on the ground he is hit in the neck with a skateboard by Huber, and he fires at Huber in return. Grosskreutz then pulls out a pistol and Rittenhouse blasts off his bicep. Pretty easy for the defense to argue that Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life in this situation and was therefore justified in his self defense.

The only real argument the prosecution has left after seeing all of the evidence of what actually transpired is how Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there etc, and then they can try their best to say that he went there specifically to kill, which I don't think they have the evidence to successfully do.

[Anonymous]

If the judge gives the full and proper explanation of the "self-defense" law in Wisconsin, and the jury takes their job seriously, he will be convicted.

I don't have faith that either of those things will happen, so Rittenhouse will walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kyle will walk from this.

Rosenbaum charged at Kyle and Kyle retreated until he was cornered by the cars. According to the aerial footage, three seconds before Kyle's shots were fired, a protestor fired a single shot into the air, adding even further basis for the defense to argue that Kyle reasonably feared for his life in shooting Rosenbaum.

Following this, Grosskreutz literally followed Rittenhouse and asked him what he was doing. When Rittenhouse said loud and clear enough to hear on video that he was going to get the police as he ran towards the line of cops at the end of the block, Grosskreutz began yelling at people to attack him and you hear others start saying "get that dude" etc. This shows very clearly how Grosskreutz and Huber's actions were in no way an immediate visceral reaction to a threat - they literally chased him as he stated he was going to the cops. As Kyle attempts to retreat towards the cops he is hit and knocked over, and as he is on the ground he is hit in the neck with a skateboard by Huber, and he fires at Huber in return. Grosskreutz then pulls out a pistol and Rittenhouse blasts off his bicep. Pretty easy for the defense to argue that Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life in this situation and was therefore justified in his self defense.

The only real argument the prosecution has left after seeing all of the evidence of what actually transpired is how Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there etc, and then they can try their best to say that he went there specifically to kill, which I don't think they have the evidence to successfully do.

He brought the AR 15. That is your evidence.

He went there to kill. And he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle will walk from this.

Rosenbaum charged at Kyle and Kyle retreated until he was cornered by the cars. According to the aerial footage, three seconds before Kyle's shots were fired, a protestor fired a single shot into the air, adding even further basis for the defense to argue that Kyle reasonably feared for his life in shooting Rosenbaum.

Following this, Grosskreutz literally followed Rittenhouse and asked him what he was doing. When Rittenhouse said loud and clear enough to hear on video that he was going to get the police as he ran towards the line of cops at the end of the block, Grosskreutz began yelling at people to attack him and you hear others start saying "get that dude" etc. This shows very clearly how Grosskreutz and Huber's actions were in no way an immediate visceral reaction to a threat - they literally chased him as he stated he was going to the cops. As Kyle attempts to retreat towards the cops he is hit and knocked over, and as he is on the ground he is hit in the neck with a skateboard by Huber, and he fires at Huber in return. Grosskreutz then pulls out a pistol and Rittenhouse blasts off his bicep. Pretty easy for the defense to argue that Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life in this situation and was therefore justified in his self defense.

The only real argument the prosecution has left after seeing all of the evidence of what actually transpired is how Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there etc, and then they can try their best to say that he went there specifically to kill, which I don't think they have the evidence to successfully do.

He brought the AR 15. That is your evidence.

He went there to kill. And he did.

So, anyone who open carries or conceals carries is going out to kill?
Do you understand why people carry firearms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the judge gives the full and proper explanation of the "self-defense" law in Wisconsin, and the jury takes their job seriously, he will be convicted.

I don't have faith that either of those things will happen, so Rittenhouse will walk.

I totally disagree. This is a classic case of self defense. And there is video to support it.
Nothing that has been put into evidence indicates anything other than self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle will walk from this.

Rosenbaum charged at Kyle and Kyle retreated until he was cornered by the cars. According to the aerial footage, three seconds before Kyle's shots were fired, a protestor fired a single shot into the air, adding even further basis for the defense to argue that Kyle reasonably feared for his life in shooting Rosenbaum.

Following this, Grosskreutz literally followed Rittenhouse and asked him what he was doing. When Rittenhouse said loud and clear enough to hear on video that he was going to get the police as he ran towards the line of cops at the end of the block, Grosskreutz began yelling at people to attack him and you hear others start saying "get that dude" etc. This shows very clearly how Grosskreutz and Huber's actions were in no way an immediate visceral reaction to a threat - they literally chased him as he stated he was going to the cops. As Kyle attempts to retreat towards the cops he is hit and knocked over, and as he is on the ground he is hit in the neck with a skateboard by Huber, and he fires at Huber in return. Grosskreutz then pulls out a pistol and Rittenhouse blasts off his bicep. Pretty easy for the defense to argue that Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life in this situation and was therefore justified in his self defense.

The only real argument the prosecution has left after seeing all of the evidence of what actually transpired is how Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there etc, and then they can try their best to say that he went there specifically to kill, which I don't think they have the evidence to successfully do.

He brought the AR 15. That is your evidence.

He went there to kill. And he did.

So, anyone who open carries or conceals carries is going out to kill?
Do you understand why people carry firearms?

Yes, to kill people. Do you understand why people carry firearms?

I'll never carry a gun, I don't want to kill anyone. Rittenhouse did. And did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the judge gives the full and proper explanation of the "self-defense" law in Wisconsin, and the jury takes their job seriously, he will be convicted.

I don't have faith that either of those things will happen, so Rittenhouse will walk.

I totally disagree. This is a classic case of self defense. And there is video to support it.
Nothing that has been put into evidence indicates anything other than self defense.

Rittenhouse's response was disproportionate. You don't get to kill someone because they're coming towards you and yelling.

Have you ever been to downtown DC? People come at you and yell at you. That doesn't give you the justification to kill them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the judge gives the full and proper explanation of the "self-defense" law in Wisconsin, and the jury takes their job seriously, he will be convicted.

I don't have faith that either of those things will happen, so Rittenhouse will walk.

You mean the other way around. He will be found innocent if they took their jobs seriously. Unfortunately, if the jury was into feeling sorry for a child rapist and criminal dying in the street because another child was trying to defend himself, then he will be found guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the judge gives the full and proper explanation of the "self-defense" law in Wisconsin, and the jury takes their job seriously, he will be convicted.

I don't have faith that either of those things will happen, so Rittenhouse will walk.

I totally disagree. This is a classic case of self defense. And there is video to support it.
Nothing that has been put into evidence indicates anything other than self defense.

Rittenhouse's response was disproportionate. You don't get to kill someone because they're coming towards you and yelling.

Have you ever been to downtown DC? People come at you and yell at you. That doesn't give you the justification to kill them.

I don't know..... if someone came up and started beating me with a skateboard, I think I might have to defend myself with a weapon I might be carrying.
Or, if someone pointed a gun at me, I think I may have to take action to defend myself.
In case you have not been paying attention to the trial.... these people did not just yell at him. Each one of them threatened him. With more than words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle will walk from this.

Rosenbaum charged at Kyle and Kyle retreated until he was cornered by the cars. According to the aerial footage, three seconds before Kyle's shots were fired, a protestor fired a single shot into the air, adding even further basis for the defense to argue that Kyle reasonably feared for his life in shooting Rosenbaum.

Following this, Grosskreutz literally followed Rittenhouse and asked him what he was doing. When Rittenhouse said loud and clear enough to hear on video that he was going to get the police as he ran towards the line of cops at the end of the block, Grosskreutz began yelling at people to attack him and you hear others start saying "get that dude" etc. This shows very clearly how Grosskreutz and Huber's actions were in no way an immediate visceral reaction to a threat - they literally chased him as he stated he was going to the cops. As Kyle attempts to retreat towards the cops he is hit and knocked over, and as he is on the ground he is hit in the neck with a skateboard by Huber, and he fires at Huber in return. Grosskreutz then pulls out a pistol and Rittenhouse blasts off his bicep. Pretty easy for the defense to argue that Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life in this situation and was therefore justified in his self defense.

The only real argument the prosecution has left after seeing all of the evidence of what actually transpired is how Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there etc, and then they can try their best to say that he went there specifically to kill, which I don't think they have the evidence to successfully do.

He brought the AR 15. That is your evidence.

He went there to kill. And he did.

Good luck to the prosecution if they are attempting to use "open carrying a rifle" as clear evidence of intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt in the situation as presented with the video evidence. Whether you agree with it or not, open carrying is a legal practice in many states and thus it can be clearly be reasonably inferred that there are other reasons to do it beyond setting out to commit murder. He will walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the judge gives the full and proper explanation of the "self-defense" law in Wisconsin, and the jury takes their job seriously, he will be convicted.

I don't have faith that either of those things will happen, so Rittenhouse will walk.

I totally disagree. This is a classic case of self defense. And there is video to support it.
Nothing that has been put into evidence indicates anything other than self defense.

Rittenhouse's response was disproportionate. You don't get to kill someone because they're coming towards you and yelling.

Have you ever been to downtown DC? People come at you and yell at you. That doesn't give you the justification to kill them.

I don't know..... if someone came up and started beating me with a skateboard, I think I might have to defend myself with a weapon I might be carrying.
Or, if someone pointed a gun at me, I think I may have to take action to defend myself.
In case you have not been paying attention to the trial.... these people did not just yell at him. Each one of them threatened him. With more than words.

Please tell me that you do not have a gun. You sound like a homicidal maniac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle will walk from this.

Rosenbaum charged at Kyle and Kyle retreated until he was cornered by the cars. According to the aerial footage, three seconds before Kyle's shots were fired, a protestor fired a single shot into the air, adding even further basis for the defense to argue that Kyle reasonably feared for his life in shooting Rosenbaum.

Following this, Grosskreutz literally followed Rittenhouse and asked him what he was doing. When Rittenhouse said loud and clear enough to hear on video that he was going to get the police as he ran towards the line of cops at the end of the block, Grosskreutz began yelling at people to attack him and you hear others start saying "get that dude" etc. This shows very clearly how Grosskreutz and Huber's actions were in no way an immediate visceral reaction to a threat - they literally chased him as he stated he was going to the cops. As Kyle attempts to retreat towards the cops he is hit and knocked over, and as he is on the ground he is hit in the neck with a skateboard by Huber, and he fires at Huber in return. Grosskreutz then pulls out a pistol and Rittenhouse blasts off his bicep. Pretty easy for the defense to argue that Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life in this situation and was therefore justified in his self defense.

The only real argument the prosecution has left after seeing all of the evidence of what actually transpired is how Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there etc, and then they can try their best to say that he went there specifically to kill, which I don't think they have the evidence to successfully do.

He brought the AR 15. That is your evidence.

He went there to kill. And he did.

Good luck to the prosecution if they are attempting to use "open carrying a rifle" as clear evidence of intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt in the situation as presented with the video evidence. Whether you agree with it or not, open carrying is a legal practice in many states and thus it can be clearly be reasonably inferred that there are other reasons to do it beyond setting out to commit murder. He will walk.

So you're not paying any attention to the trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the judge gives the full and proper explanation of the "self-defense" law in Wisconsin, and the jury takes their job seriously, he will be convicted.

I don't have faith that either of those things will happen, so Rittenhouse will walk.

I totally disagree. This is a classic case of self defense. And there is video to support it.
Nothing that has been put into evidence indicates anything other than self defense.

Rittenhouse's response was disproportionate. You don't get to kill someone because they're coming towards you and yelling.

Have you ever been to downtown DC? People come at you and yell at you. That doesn't give you the justification to kill them.

I don't know..... if someone came up and started beating me with a skateboard, I think I might have to defend myself with a weapon I might be carrying.
Or, if someone pointed a gun at me, I think I may have to take action to defend myself.
In case you have not been paying attention to the trial.... these people did not just yell at him. Each one of them threatened him. With more than words.

Please tell me that you do not have a gun. You sound like a homicidal maniac.

Why? Because I want to defend myself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the judge gives the full and proper explanation of the "self-defense" law in Wisconsin, and the jury takes their job seriously, he will be convicted.

I don't have faith that either of those things will happen, so Rittenhouse will walk.

Please elaborate. Which element of self defense do you believe KR fails to meet?