Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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.

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.

I haven’t heard of a single curfew violation being prosecuted from that night.

The bolded does not describe a crime. Stupid? Yes. Bad choice? Absolutely. But nothing you’ve described is a crime. You want to put him a jail for legal conduct you and I don’t particularly agree with.

[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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

[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+

Rittenhouse wasn't from Wisconsin. And what makes it so much worse is that he crossed state lines.

[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?

Great let's round up everyone who's ever had a history of mental illness and kill them then since you seem to think that's justifiable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

Did Rittenhouse know what was in the bag?

[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.

For someone supposedly so hell bent on extreme violence you'd think Rosenbaum would have armed himself with something other than a shopping bag with socks and deodorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

Did Rittenhouse know what was in the bag?

Did he care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

What about being verbally threatened (I’m going to kill you), and then being chased? Does that count as self defense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

Did Rittenhouse know what was in the bag?

Did he care?

We’ll never know that.

[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.

I look forward to you advocating for justice for the summer 2020 victims’ families, whose loved one’s murderers were never even charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

What about being verbally threatened (I’m going to kill you), and then being chased? Does that count as self defense?

This isn't an unsettled area of law. Being yelled at threateningly (although KR said he did not think he was specifically being threatened), chased, are not grounds for justifiable homicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

Did Rittenhouse know what was in the bag?

Did he care?

We’ll never know that.

How was this covered in the trial? What did he/the lawyers say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

So, you are admitting that you have neither watched the trial nor read any unbiased pieces about the trial and choose to remain blissfully ignorant.

[Anonymous]

This super long quotes are annoying. Rittenhouse’s dad lives in Kenosha long with grandparents and sister, I think. He was hardly a stranger to the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?????

Being threatened with a shopping bag with socks and deodorant isn't credible as self defense, IMHO.

What about being verbally threatened (I’m going to kill you), and then being chased? Does that count as self defense?

This isn't an unsettled area of law. Being yelled at threateningly (although KR said he did not think he was specifically being threatened), chased, are not grounds for justifiable homicide.

The bolded is false.
And, Rosenbaum was going for the gun. The forensic pathologist testified he had soot injuries that are consistent with his hand being over the barrel of the gun.