Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

Precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shaw_Jr.

[Anonymous]

Trayvon Martin

[Anonymous]

Tamir Rice

[Anonymous]

John Crawford

[Anonymous]

jesus christ tucker is defending this murderer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trayvon Martin

Great example of two people who both made horrible decisions that resulted in a tragic outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trayvon Martin

Great example of two people who both made horrible decisions that resulted in a tragic outcome.

Let alone a man with a gun follow your kid home from buying an ice tea.
give me an effing break

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:jesus christ tucker is defending this murderer

Did you expect anything else from Tuck the Cuck? I hate them all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: to

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Can legally openly carry a loaded firearm in Wisconsin with limited restrictions.

One of those limited restrictions being that you have to be 18, which he isn't.

So why isn't this open and shut felonh murder? Self defense is irrelevent when there's a felony being committed

Okay, I just looked it up. Wisconsin law says a person committing an unlawful act (17 year old open carrying) that provoked an attack may still claim self defense if the unlawful actor (17 year old) withdraws from the fight. Shooter turning his back and running away from the first person before shooting is probably going to save his ass here.

1. “the fight” would need to be a proportionate use of force. Unarmed person chasing you is not proportionate excuse to fire an AR-15
2. He is not licensed to open carry in WI as an IL resident. Brought a fire arm across state lines.

I think he’s still f#cked. And I hope this menace goes away for a long time.

Your number 1 is not correct. The proportionality required is not based on weapons. He simply needed to reasonably believe that his life was in imminent danger or that he was about to suffer grave bodily harm. He’ll claim he saw the person light the device on fire, throw it at him and continue to chase him. I think most reasonable people would fear for their lives or grave bodily harm in such A scenario.

He’ll rightly get popped on the illegal open carrying and unexpected the’ll be shown no mercy on that charge.

I am confused by some do the posts here. Shooter was clearly running away before the first shooting. I guess posters on here hate him so much that no credit is being given to him for clearly trying to withdraw. Don’t get me wrong: he shouldn’t have been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but once he tried to wave that should have been the end of it for everyone.

NP. I haven't watched the videos and I won't. I don't watch videos of people getting killed.

I don't understand your description of what happened with the first shooting. The victim threw something at the armed person, moved towards him, the armed person ran away. And then turned around and killed the victim? If the armed person was running away from the person who threw something at him, then how was the thrower killed?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

Precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shaw_Jr.

That is a really strange way of looking at it. The people pursuing Ritttenhouse put themselves in that situation by chasing him and assaulting him. If you aren't trained and identifiable as a police officer, you are taking on some major risk by attempting to disarm someone. They had to know this guy was armed with a rifle. What were they thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

Precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shaw_Jr.

That is a really strange way of looking at it. The people pursuing Ritttenhouse put themselves in that situation by chasing him and assaulting him. If you aren't trained and identifiable as a police officer, you are taking on some major risk by attempting to disarm someone. They had to know this guy was armed with a rifle. What were they thinking?

There have been enough mass shootings in this country that there are enough people who will rush a shooter.

Not you, maybe, but other people have successfully rushed mass shooters and have stopped or slowed them. Sometimes they even live through it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

Precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shaw_Jr.

That is a really strange way of looking at it. The people pursuing Ritttenhouse put themselves in that situation by chasing him and assaulting him. If you aren't trained and identifiable as a police officer, you are taking on some major risk by attempting to disarm someone. They had to know this guy was armed with a rifle. What were they thinking?

They were thinking that most mass shootings are done by young white men and that the cops had been taking two hours to show up.

[Anonymous]

This type of situation was/inevitable.

There was a post about a race war and what it would look lime and it is just like this. You will see more militias, less interest in pro sports and self imposed segregation.

There is no upside to this for blacks.

[Anonymous]

Watch what you are using as an argument. If it’s considered self defense to chase and attack the shooter with force then tue shooter could also claim that he would be allowed to chase and attack others. It just doesn't make sense. If you are fearing for your life then you should seek safe escape, not chase the person so that you end up engaged and at risk for a longer time than you would have otherwise.