Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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.

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.

Bravo!!!

The last paragraph is so true. And, given the tweet yesterday by Hakeem Jeffries, it is absolutely spot on.

[Anonymous]

this thread has convinced me that the big news networks and big tech censor in a way that would make the communist party state controlled newspaper blush.

Anyone who watched all the video evidence (and there are tons) and the trial should have no doubt this was a pretty straight forward case of self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

that isn't what is on trial here. In Wisconsin law, you can legally carry a long rifle at 16-17 and a handgun at 18+

[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.

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.

I don’t know how many posters have been defending KR, but I hope you’re not one of the ones who have acted like he did everyone a favor by killing those two men, because they also deserve impartial justice despite being the dregs of society.

I don’t care about Rittenhouse’s politics. I care that during the commission of other crimes, he killed people, because if he walks, he’ll be fre to continue making terrible choices that endanger others. The justice system does take into account the circumstances under which you find yourself needing to shoot people.

I agree with you that his being a minor at the time these incidents took place should factor into his treatment by the justice system. I don’t think he should be tried as an adult. Clearly, his being a kid played a role in his poor decision making. Incarcerating him with adult convicts would be tragic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

that isn't what is on trial here. In Wisconsin law, you can legally carry a long rifle at 16-17 and a handgun at 18+

For hunting. Are you suggesting he was hunting?

[Anonymous]

Again, he is definitely guilty of multiple offenses but that charges that were chosen to levy against him do not fit the circumstances. The are probably a dozen lesser offenses he could have been charged with that would be indefensible and with significant penalties.

[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.

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.

I don’t know how many posters have been defending KR, but I hope you’re not one of the ones who have acted like he did everyone a favor by killing those two men, because they also deserve impartial justice despite being the dregs of society.

I don’t care about Rittenhouse’s politics. I care that during the commission of other crimes, he killed people, because if he walks, he’ll be fre to continue making terrible choices that endanger others. The justice system does take into account the circumstances under which you find yourself needing to shoot people.

I agree with you that his being a minor at the time these incidents took place should factor into his treatment by the justice system. I don’t think he should be tried as an adult. Clearly, his being a kid played a role in his poor decision making. Incarcerating him with adult convicts would be tragic.

I have defended KR in this thread but I do NOT fall into the camp that he did society a favor.

Respectfully, I think you need to check why you want him in jail. If by “making terrible choices that endanger others” you mean walking around a riot with an AR-15, well, that is now perfectly legal behavior for him to engage in. We don’t get to put people in jail just because they may engage in totally legal conduct that you or I find stupid or inadvisable.

[Anonymous]

No it wasn't. He was underage. It was not legal for him to be walking around with an AR-15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it wasn't. He was underage. It was not legal for him to be walking around with an AR-15.

Re-read what you’re reacting to: the word “now” is pretty darn important in that sentence.

[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.

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.

Rittenhouse was retreating towards a line of officers and told Huber “I’m going to get the police”. Despite hearing this, Huber attacked Kyle and knocked him to the ground before hitting him in the face / neck with a skateboard. The fact that Rittenhouse was retreating towards police officers while clearly stating that he was retreating nullifies any argument that Huber was simply trying to stop an active shooter situation as the video shows Kyle’s actions and words indicating that he is not an active threat.

You may not like him because of his politics, but the kid did not commit murder. He went to an active protest to try and be a macho man hero and his stupidity (which would have been legal had he been old enough to purchase a rifle) contributed to a bad outcome, but to paint him as going out of his way to murder people when in each instance he is actively retreating is flat out wrong.

[Anonymous]

this lays it out fairly well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t know how many posters have been defending KR, but I hope you’re not one of the ones who have acted like he did everyone a favor by killing those two men, because they also deserve impartial justice despite being the dregs of society.

I don’t care about Rittenhouse’s politics. I care that during the commission of other crimes, he killed people, because if he walks, he’ll be fre to continue making terrible choices that endanger others. The justice system does take into account the circumstances under which you find yourself needing to shoot people.

I agree with you that his being a minor at the time these incidents took place should factor into his treatment by the justice system. I don’t think he should be tried as an adult. Clearly, his being a kid played a role in his poor decision making. Incarcerating him with adult convicts would be tragic.

I have defended KR in this thread but I do NOT fall into the camp that he did society a favor.

Respectfully, I think you need to check why you want him in jail. If by “making terrible choices that endanger others” you mean walking around a riot with an AR-15, well, that is now perfectly legal behavior for him to engage in. We don’t get to put people in jail just because they may engage in totally legal conduct that you or I find stupid or inadvisable.

It wasn’t lawful for anyone, even adults, to be out on the streets once the curfew went into effect. What I meant by “terrible choices that endanger others” is seeking out opportunities to confront other criminals in tense, chaotic situations despite having no military or law enforcement training, because of the false confidence that carrying an assault rifle gives him.

[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.

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.

Bravo!!!

The last paragraph is so true. And, given the tweet yesterday by Hakeem Jeffries, it is absolutely spot on.

Both of you seem confused.

1. I am in very much in favor of police reform. I don't think it is reasonable for police to do things like violently throw non-violent offenders to the ground, suffocate them with a knee to the neck, dislocate shoulders and break arms like the granny with alzheimers who was picking flowers. Or any of the interactions with the mentally ill that police unnecessarily turned violent. Or to shoot and kill people like Philandro Castile, who was legally carrying a gun. There are a lot of things in policing that MUST CHANGE.

2. I ALSO believe that anyone who engages in murder, violent crime, gun crime, needs to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted with sentencing that removes them from society and put in prison.

There is absolutely no conflict there whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Bravo!!!

The last paragraph is so true. And, given the tweet yesterday by Hakeem Jeffries, it is absolutely spot on.

Both of you seem confused.

1. I am in very much in favor of police reform. I don't think it is reasonable for police to do things like violently throw non-violent offenders to the ground, suffocate them with a knee to the neck, dislocate shoulders and break arms like the granny with alzheimers who was picking flowers. Or any of the interactions with the mentally ill that police unnecessarily turned violent. Or to shoot and kill people like Philandro Castile, who was legally carrying a gun. There are a lot of things in policing that MUST CHANGE.

2. I ALSO believe that anyone who engages in murder, violent crime, gun crime, needs to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted with sentencing that removes them from society and put in prison.

There is absolutely no conflict there whatsoever.

Even when that person was acting in self defense?????

[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.

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.

Rittenhouse was retreating towards a line of officers and told Huber “I’m going to get the police”. Despite hearing this, Huber attacked Kyle and knocked him to the ground before hitting him in the face / neck with a skateboard. The fact that Rittenhouse was retreating towards police officers while clearly stating that he was retreating nullifies any argument that Huber was simply trying to stop an active shooter situation as the video shows Kyle’s actions and words indicating that he is not an active threat.

You may not like him because of his politics, but the kid did not commit murder. He went to an active protest to try and be a macho man hero and his stupidity (which would have been legal had he been old enough to purchase a rifle) contributed to a bad outcome, but to paint him as going out of his way to murder people when in each instance he is actively retreating is flat out wrong.

You just said it - there was an active line of police. Rittenhouse had ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS being there. Rittenhouse was in the wrong, put himself in a situation of conflict, got in over his head, panicked and overreacted and shot Rosenbaum for nothing more than throwing a shopping bag with socks and deodorant at him. Rittenhouse is still a murderer, regardless of anything else.