Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What about the fact that Rosenbaum was bipolar, had a history of extreme violence, and had recently gone off his meds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you think that a teenager’s online profile picture speaks to the kind of person he is, then I’m fairly certain someone raping multiple children and going to jail for it is also more than a little telling. No one’s sad Rosenbaum is 💀

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What about the fact that Rosenbaum was bipolar, had a history of extreme violence, and had recently gone off his meds?

So you are saying Rittenhouse knew this and went there to hunt him down? That would be first degree murder. He should be glad you are not his lawyer. You have no reasoning skills and should exit this discussion before you get your boy in more trouble.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe anyone wants to defend an underage, unemployed high school dropout who routinely drove without a license, broke a curfew to be present during a riot, illegally carried a firearm to the riot because he anticipated confrontations, told a reporter his “job” was to protect people, habitually stretches the truth, and killed two people. He had no training or experience in providing security. He was just a kid with a history of being bullied and belittled, who liked guns and cops, and fantasized about having authority and a being a hero. He shouldn’t have been in illegal possession of a gun. He shouldn’t have been on the streets with rioters. Had he obeyed the law, there wouldn’t have been any shootings.

It’s no surprise that the people he shot were not denizens of Kenosha; they were violating the curfew too by being out there on the streets during looting, destruction of property, and clashes between different groups. Law abiding citizens were off the streets at that point. People don’t have to mourn the passing of two predators, but their criminal histories were unknown by Rittenhouse and didn’t factor into his shooting them.

Years ago, a woman snuck into the zoo when it was closed and somehow got into the lion enclosure. She was killed by the animals. Had she brought an AR15 with her and gunned the lions down when they started to attack her, would you call that self defense and say she shouldn’t be convicted of any crimes? That’s essentially what Rittenhouse did. Being out on the streets past curfew was illegal. Skirmishes with other people who didn’t respect the law and were out rioting was obviously predictable, which is why Rittenhouse brought a firearm, even though it was illegal for him to do so. He got the confrontation he sought out, and killed people as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What about the fact that Rosenbaum was bipolar, had a history of extreme violence, and had recently gone off his meds?

So you are saying Rittenhouse knew this and went there to hunt him down? That would be first degree murder. He should be glad you are not his lawyer. You have no reasoning skills and should exit this discussion before you get your boy in more trouble.

I think the point is that Rosenbaum was likely in a manic/crazed state and this was conveyed by his demeanor and actions, which helps to build a case for why Rittenhouse would feel especially threatened by him. Rosenbaum's violent past reinforces how he most likely carried and presented himself - as erratic and violent - which is supported by video clips of interactions he had with other protestors. Seems reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What about the fact that Rosenbaum was bipolar, had a history of extreme violence, and had recently gone off his meds?

So you are saying Rittenhouse knew this and went there to hunt him down? That would be first degree murder. He should be glad you are not his lawyer. You have no reasoning skills and should exit this discussion before you get your boy in more trouble.

Wisconsin law specifically allows a defendant in a self defense case to introduce evidence of the victim's past violent acts. It shows propensity to violence. Doesn't matter if the defendant knew about them.

Source:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/i/01/3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What about the fact that Rosenbaum was bipolar, had a history of extreme violence, and had recently gone off his meds?

Just like with George Floyd, his immediate criminal behavior that lead to his death is quickly forgotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe anyone wants to defend an underage, unemployed high school dropout who routinely drove without a license, broke a curfew to be present during a riot, illegally carried a firearm to the riot because he anticipated confrontations, told a reporter his “job” was to protect people, habitually stretches the truth, and killed two people. He had no training or experience in providing security. He was just a kid with a history of being bullied and belittled, who liked guns and cops, and fantasized about having authority and a being a hero. He shouldn’t have been in illegal possession of a gun. He shouldn’t have been on the streets with rioters. Had he obeyed the law, there wouldn’t have been any shootings.

It’s no surprise that the people he shot were not denizens of Kenosha; they were violating the curfew too by being out there on the streets during looting, destruction of property, and clashes between different groups. Law abiding citizens were off the streets at that point. People don’t have to mourn the passing of two predators, but their criminal histories were unknown by Rittenhouse and didn’t factor into his shooting them.

Years ago, a woman snuck into the zoo when it was closed and somehow got into the lion enclosure. She was killed by the animals. Had she brought an AR15 with her and gunned the lions down when they started to attack her, would you call that self defense and say she shouldn’t be convicted of any crimes? That’s essentially what Rittenhouse did. Being out on the streets past curfew was illegal. Skirmishes with other people who didn’t respect the law and were out rioting was obviously predictable, which is why Rittenhouse brought a firearm, even though it was illegal for him to do so. He got the confrontation he sought out, and killed people as a result.

Your analogy is terrible. You're comparing people to wild animals and a zoo enclosure which nobody should be in to a community in which people live in. There is certainly an expectation of safety in the streets unlike in a zoo enclosure. Do you consider the rioters to be equivalent to wild animals that can't control themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe anyone wants to defend an underage, unemployed high school dropout who routinely drove without a license, broke a curfew to be present during a riot, illegally carried a firearm to the riot because he anticipated confrontations, told a reporter his “job” was to protect people, habitually stretches the truth, and killed two people. He had no training or experience in providing security. He was just a kid with a history of being bullied and belittled, who liked guns and cops, and fantasized about having authority and a being a hero. He shouldn’t have been in illegal possession of a gun. He shouldn’t have been on the streets with rioters. Had he obeyed the law, there wouldn’t have been any shootings.

It’s no surprise that the people he shot were not denizens of Kenosha; they were violating the curfew too by being out there on the streets during looting, destruction of property, and clashes between different groups. Law abiding citizens were off the streets at that point. People don’t have to mourn the passing of two predators, but their criminal histories were unknown by Rittenhouse and didn’t factor into his shooting them.

Years ago, a woman snuck into the zoo when it was closed and somehow got into the lion enclosure. She was killed by the animals. Had she brought an AR15 with her and gunned the lions down when they started to attack her, would you call that self defense and say she shouldn’t be convicted of any crimes? That’s essentially what Rittenhouse did. Being out on the streets past curfew was illegal. Skirmishes with other people who didn’t respect the law and were out rioting was obviously predictable, which is why Rittenhouse brought a firearm, even though it was illegal for him to do so. He got the confrontation he sought out, and killed people as a result.

He's not on trial for any of that. The question is whether he committed homicide or shot in self defense. The extensive amounts of evidence and eyewitness testimony indicate the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe anyone wants to defend an underage, unemployed high school dropout who routinely drove without a license, broke a curfew to be present during a riot, illegally carried a firearm to the riot because he anticipated confrontations, told a reporter his “job” was to protect people, habitually stretches the truth, and killed two people. He had no training or experience in providing security. He was just a kid with a history of being bullied and belittled, who liked guns and cops, and fantasized about having authority and a being a hero. He shouldn’t have been in illegal possession of a gun. He shouldn’t have been on the streets with rioters. Had he obeyed the law, there wouldn’t have been any shootings.

It’s no surprise that the people he shot were not denizens of Kenosha; they were violating the curfew too by being out there on the streets during looting, destruction of property, and clashes between different groups. Law abiding citizens were off the streets at that point. People don’t have to mourn the passing of two predators, but their criminal histories were unknown by Rittenhouse and didn’t factor into his shooting them.

Years ago, a woman snuck into the zoo when it was closed and somehow got into the lion enclosure. She was killed by the animals. Had she brought an AR15 with her and gunned the lions down when they started to attack her, would you call that self defense and say she shouldn’t be convicted of any crimes? That’s essentially what Rittenhouse did. Being out on the streets past curfew was illegal. Skirmishes with other people who didn’t respect the law and were out rioting was obviously predictable, which is why Rittenhouse brought a firearm, even though it was illegal for him to do so. He got the confrontation he sought out, and killed people as a result.

Well put. How anyone can think it was acceptable for 17 year old Kyle to be there and carrying an AR-15 is hard to understand. Maybe imagine he was black and went there with that same gun. Does that still seem ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What about the fact that Rosenbaum was bipolar, had a history of extreme violence, and had recently gone off his meds?

So you are saying Rittenhouse knew this and went there to hunt him down? That would be first degree murder. He should be glad you are not his lawyer. You have no reasoning skills and should exit this discussion before you get your boy in more trouble.

I think the point is that Rosenbaum was likely in a manic/crazed state and this was conveyed by his demeanor and actions, which helps to build a case for why Rittenhouse would feel especially threatened by him. Rosenbaum's violent past reinforces how he most likely carried and presented himself - as erratic and violent - which is supported by video clips of interactions he had with other protestors. Seems reasonable.

There were other people around when Rosenbaum was yelling, acting in a manic state. None of them felt threatened. The only one who felt threatened was the kid with the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe anyone wants to defend an underage, unemployed high school dropout who routinely drove without a license, broke a curfew to be present during a riot, illegally carried a firearm to the riot because he anticipated confrontations, told a reporter his “job” was to protect people, habitually stretches the truth, and killed two people. He had no training or experience in providing security. He was just a kid with a history of being bullied and belittled, who liked guns and cops, and fantasized about having authority and a being a hero. He shouldn’t have been in illegal possession of a gun. He shouldn’t have been on the streets with rioters. Had he obeyed the law, there wouldn’t have been any shootings.

It’s no surprise that the people he shot were not denizens of Kenosha; they were violating the curfew too by being out there on the streets during looting, destruction of property, and clashes between different groups. Law abiding citizens were off the streets at that point. People don’t have to mourn the passing of two predators, but their criminal histories were unknown by Rittenhouse and didn’t factor into his shooting them.

Years ago, a woman snuck into the zoo when it was closed and somehow got into the lion enclosure. She was killed by the animals. Had she brought an AR15 with her and gunned the lions down when they started to attack her, would you call that self defense and say she shouldn’t be convicted of any crimes? That’s essentially what Rittenhouse did. Being out on the streets past curfew was illegal. Skirmishes with other people who didn’t respect the law and were out rioting was obviously predictable, which is why Rittenhouse brought a firearm, even though it was illegal for him to do so. He got the confrontation he sought out, and killed people as a result.

Well put. How anyone can think it was acceptable for 17 year old Kyle to be there and carrying an AR-15 is hard to understand. Maybe imagine he was black and went there with that same gun. Does that still seem ok?

Is it acceptable for 17 yo marines to carry guns to protect our country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What about the fact that Rosenbaum was bipolar, had a history of extreme violence, and had recently gone off his meds?

So you are saying Rittenhouse knew this and went there to hunt him down? That would be first degree murder. He should be glad you are not his lawyer. You have no reasoning skills and should exit this discussion before you get your boy in more trouble.

I think the point is that Rosenbaum was likely in a manic/crazed state and this was conveyed by his demeanor and actions, which helps to build a case for why Rittenhouse would feel especially threatened by him. Rosenbaum's violent past reinforces how he most likely carried and presented himself - as erratic and violent - which is supported by video clips of interactions he had with other protestors. Seems reasonable.

There were other people around when Rosenbaum was yelling, acting in a manic state. None of them felt threatened. The only one who felt threatened was the kid with the gun.

Maybe because Rosenbaum was chasing him and had previously told him he would kill Rittenhouse if he caught him alone and then telling a group he was with "I'm going to cut your f**king hearts out."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe anyone wants to defend an underage, unemployed high school dropout who routinely drove without a license, broke a curfew to be present during a riot, illegally carried a firearm to the riot because he anticipated confrontations, told a reporter his “job” was to protect people, habitually stretches the truth, and killed two people. He had no training or experience in providing security. He was just a kid with a history of being bullied and belittled, who liked guns and cops, and fantasized about having authority and a being a hero. He shouldn’t have been in illegal possession of a gun. He shouldn’t have been on the streets with rioters. Had he obeyed the law, there wouldn’t have been any shootings.

It’s no surprise that the people he shot were not denizens of Kenosha; they were violating the curfew too by being out there on the streets during looting, destruction of property, and clashes between different groups. Law abiding citizens were off the streets at that point. People don’t have to mourn the passing of two predators, but their criminal histories were unknown by Rittenhouse and didn’t factor into his shooting them.

Years ago, a woman snuck into the zoo when it was closed and somehow got into the lion enclosure. She was killed by the animals. Had she brought an AR15 with her and gunned the lions down when they started to attack her, would you call that self defense and say she shouldn’t be convicted of any crimes? That’s essentially what Rittenhouse did. Being out on the streets past curfew was illegal. Skirmishes with other people who didn’t respect the law and were out rioting was obviously predictable, which is why Rittenhouse brought a firearm, even though it was illegal for him to do so. He got the confrontation he sought out, and killed people as a result.

The real problem is that you don’t want to defend him. The law is supposed to apply to everyone with equal force. Whether youre Mother Theresa herself or the worst dregs of our society. KR did a lot of things wrong that night, but they have little or no bearing on his self defense claim. Just like the police don’t get to choke you to death just because you allegedly passed out counterfeit money, other people don’t get to violate your personal safety just because you are somewhere you shouldn’t be doing something that you shouldn’t be doing. Whether you’re an underage kid drinking in a bar on a fake ID, or unreasonably speeding done the highway, or a 17 year old idiot who showed up armed to a riot after curfew, you still have rights.

This whole criminal case has been a travesty and embarrassment. And we haven’t even talked about the fact that websites like Facebook and gofundme prohibited him from fund raising for his defense.

Whether you do it formally or informally, reserving society’s sympathies and/or legal protections for politically favored individuals is a very dangerous precedent to set because some day others will be in power.

This thread is very illuminating to me and it makes me reconsider the sincerity of the criminal justice reform movement. The very same people who would tell us we live in a systematically oppressive carceral state under a militarized police force all of a sudden have no problem locking up and throwing away the key in this case. Hell, I haven’t even heard that favored talking point about how at 17 his brain wasn’t fully developed yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe anyone wants to defend an underage, unemployed high school dropout who routinely drove without a license, broke a curfew to be present during a riot, illegally carried a firearm to the riot because he anticipated confrontations, told a reporter his “job” was to protect people, habitually stretches the truth, and killed two people. He had no training or experience in providing security. He was just a kid with a history of being bullied and belittled, who liked guns and cops, and fantasized about having authority and a being a hero. He shouldn’t have been in illegal possession of a gun. He shouldn’t have been on the streets with rioters. Had he obeyed the law, there wouldn’t have been any shootings.

It’s no surprise that the people he shot were not denizens of Kenosha; they were violating the curfew too by being out there on the streets during looting, destruction of property, and clashes between different groups. Law abiding citizens were off the streets at that point. People don’t have to mourn the passing of two predators, but their criminal histories were unknown by Rittenhouse and didn’t factor into his shooting them.

Years ago, a woman snuck into the zoo when it was closed and somehow got into the lion enclosure. She was killed by the animals. Had she brought an AR15 with her and gunned the lions down when they started to attack her, would you call that self defense and say she shouldn’t be convicted of any crimes? That’s essentially what Rittenhouse did. Being out on the streets past curfew was illegal. Skirmishes with other people who didn’t respect the law and were out rioting was obviously predictable, which is why Rittenhouse brought a firearm, even though it was illegal for him to do so. He got the confrontation he sought out, and killed people as a result.

Well put. How anyone can think it was acceptable for 17 year old Kyle to be there and carrying an AR-15 is hard to understand. Maybe imagine he was black and went there with that same gun. Does that still seem ok?

Is it acceptable for 17 yo marines to carry guns to protect our country?

Do we allow 17 year old dropouts to enlist and then allow them to go out on patrol with automatic weapons before they’ve been to basic training simply because they want to?