Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

[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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

Don't go around killing people in DC. Just leave. As Rittenhouse should have done when he met Rosenbaum.

[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.

Huber didn't go after Rittenhouse for no reason. Rittenhouse had already killed someone and represented a threat. Huber was trying to knock the gun away from him.

[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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

It started with Rosenbaum, who was not a credible threat to Rittenhouse. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with some socks and deodorant in it. Dude was on his way home from shopping when Rittenhouse killed him.

[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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

It started with Rosenbaum, who was not a credible threat to Rittenhouse. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with some socks and deodorant in it. Dude was on his way home from shopping when Rittenhouse killed him.

It’s poetic justice what Rosenbaum got. Society owes Rittenhouse a thank you for that one.

[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?

Why do hunters carry assault rifles to shoot and to kill. If I saw someone walk up to a school carrying an assault weapon, or walk into a mall, or walk down the street I’m Ducking for cover and calling the police because I’d think they were there to kill someone, maybe me. Especially if a slow eyed white kid is carrying it. I don’t think it’s normal to walk down the street with a massive assault rifle on display. I’m surprised so many people on here do. I thought DCUM posters were far too civilized for such backwoods country behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

It started with Rosenbaum, who was not a credible threat to Rittenhouse. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with some socks and deodorant in it. Dude was on his way home from shopping when Rittenhouse killed him.

It’s poetic justice what Rosenbaum got. Society owes Rittenhouse a thank you for that one.

There but for the grace...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why do hunters carry assault rifles to shoot and to kill. If I saw someone walk up to a school carrying an assault weapon, or walk into a mall, or walk down the street I’m Ducking for cover and calling the police because I’d think they were there to kill someone, maybe me. Especially if a slow eyed white kid is carrying it. I don’t think it’s normal to walk down the street with a massive assault rifle on display. I’m surprised so many people on here do. I thought DCUM posters were far too civilized for such backwoods country behaviors.

One of the most fascinating things about the video is how people stick around after the shooting. I hear shooting and I’m gone, not looking back. Where is people’s basic sense of self preservation?

[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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

It started with Rosenbaum, who was not a credible threat to Rittenhouse. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with some socks and deodorant in it. Dude was on his way home from shopping when Rittenhouse killed him.

Did you watch the video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

It started with Rosenbaum, who was not a credible threat to Rittenhouse. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with some socks and deodorant in it. Dude was on his way home from shopping when Rittenhouse killed him.

It’s poetic justice what Rosenbaum got. Society owes Rittenhouse a thank you for that one.

There but for the grace...

I think PP was referring to the fact that Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester. He spent 10 years in prison for raping multiple 11 year old boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

It started with Rosenbaum, who was not a credible threat to Rittenhouse. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with some socks and deodorant in it. Dude was on his way home from shopping when Rittenhouse killed him.

It’s poetic justice what Rosenbaum got. Society owes Rittenhouse a thank you for that one.

There but for the grace...

I think PP was referring to the fact that Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester. He spent 10 years in prison for raping multiple 11 year old boys.

Anal rape for anyone wondering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone is kicking you in the head in DC then I’d suggest that you do indeed try to kill the person by any means possible before they kill you.

It started with Rosenbaum, who was not a credible threat to Rittenhouse. All Rosenbaum had was a plastic bag with some socks and deodorant in it. Dude was on his way home from shopping when Rittenhouse killed him.

It’s poetic justice what Rosenbaum got. Society owes Rittenhouse a thank you for that one.

There but for the grace...

I think PP was referring to the fact that Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester. He spent 10 years in prison for raping multiple 11 year old boys.

Anal rape for anyone wondering.

That's a totally separate issue that has absolutely nothing to do with Rittenhouse murdering Rosenbaum for little more than yelling at him and "threatening" him with some socks and deodorant. Rittenhouse had no idea what Rosenbaum's prior history was. Rittenhouse would have also murdered someone with a clean record in the same circumstance.

Nobody has the right to murder people just for feeling "threatened" by someone with socks and deodorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh?

Little Kyle lied on the stand about his status. He is not an accepted student at ASU. He is auditing classes on line. I hope the jury finds this out. What else is he lying about?