Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

If you are an actual gun owner, you'd know that you shouldn't bring a gun along because it makes situations more dangerous and makes it more likely that you'll need it. And end up shooting people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

If by “good-guy” you mean the criminal with an illegal gun, who was trying to murder a child, then, um, I guess so?

Stop parroting the narrative spewed by NPR and CNN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

If by “good-guy” you mean the criminal with an illegal gun, who was trying to murder a child, then, um, I guess so?

Stop parroting the narrative spewed by NPR and CNN.

I wasn't parroting any line and all the guns under discussion were illegal.

So why is he not a good guy with a gun? He was rushing the shooter. Because Rittenhouse cries convincingly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

You mean the guy who tried to grab his gun and had residue on his hands or the guy who attacked him by hitting him in the head and neck with the skateboard?

Oh, you mean this guy - yes, his own testimony says KR shot in self defense:

Under cross-examination by a lawyer for Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Grosskreutz gave testimony that suggested his role in the events of Aug. 25, 2020, was complicated. Like Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Grosskreutz was armed that night, and he was asked why he had falsely told police detectives shortly after the shooting that his Glock pistol had fallen out of its holster that night — rather than saying he had pulled it out, as visual evidence showed. Under questioning, he also acknowledged that he was carrying the gun concealed without a valid permit to do so and that he had denied a request from the police in September 2020 to interview him about the shootings.

As Mr. Grosskreutz described the seconds before Mr. Rittenhouse shot him, he was shown photos that captured him pointing his gun at Mr. Rittenhouse.

“So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked.

“Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered.

“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said.

“Correct,” he said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

You mean the guy who tried to grab his gun and had residue on his hands or the guy who attacked him by hitting him in the head and neck with the skateboard?

Oh, you mean this guy - yes, his own testimony says KR shot in self defense:

Under cross-examination by a lawyer for Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Grosskreutz gave testimony that suggested his role in the events of Aug. 25, 2020, was complicated. Like Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Grosskreutz was armed that night, and he was asked why he had falsely told police detectives shortly after the shooting that his Glock pistol had fallen out of its holster that night — rather than saying he had pulled it out, as visual evidence showed. Under questioning, he also acknowledged that he was carrying the gun concealed without a valid permit to do so and that he had denied a request from the police in September 2020 to interview him about the shootings.

As Mr. Grosskreutz described the seconds before Mr. Rittenhouse shot him, he was shown photos that captured him pointing his gun at Mr. Rittenhouse.

“So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked.

“Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered.

“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said.

“Correct,” he said.

And, if he had shot and/or killed KR, it would have been the same, legally. Self-defense.

Think about what that means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

If by “good-guy” you mean the criminal with an illegal gun, who was trying to murder a child, then, um, I guess so?

Stop parroting the narrative spewed by NPR and CNN.

I wasn't parroting any line and all the guns under discussion were illegal.

So why is he not a good guy with a gun? He was rushing the shooter. Because Rittenhouse cries convincingly?

No one posting on this thread is going to have an underaged child standing on the street with an AR.

There was no life threatening situation before the original shooting.

I believe GG's gun was legal, but his concealed carry license was expired. Not great, but not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

You mean the guy who tried to grab his gun and had residue on his hands or the guy who attacked him by hitting him in the head and neck with the skateboard?

Oh, you mean this guy - yes, his own testimony says KR shot in self defense:

Under cross-examination by a lawyer for Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Grosskreutz gave testimony that suggested his role in the events of Aug. 25, 2020, was complicated. Like Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Grosskreutz was armed that night, and he was asked why he had falsely told police detectives shortly after the shooting that his Glock pistol had fallen out of its holster that night — rather than saying he had pulled it out, as visual evidence showed. Under questioning, he also acknowledged that he was carrying the gun concealed without a valid permit to do so and that he had denied a request from the police in September 2020 to interview him about the shootings.

As Mr. Grosskreutz described the seconds before Mr. Rittenhouse shot him, he was shown photos that captured him pointing his gun at Mr. Rittenhouse.

“So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked.

“Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered.

“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said.

“Correct,” he said.

And, if he had shot and/or killed KR, it would have been the same, legally. Self-defense.

Think about what that means.

The witness admitted he was there with his hands up and then decided to advance on the guy and point his gun at him. Not the same, but it doesn't matter because your scenario didn't happen and isn't on trial. The Wisconsin laws are very lenient in interpreting self defense, and the guy admitted he was advancing and pointing a weapon at KR. Talk about changing the narrative whether or not you like the shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

If by “good-guy” you mean the criminal with an illegal gun, who was trying to murder a child, then, um, I guess so?

Stop parroting the narrative spewed by NPR and CNN.

I wasn't parroting any line and all the guns under discussion were illegal.

So why is he not a good guy with a gun? He was rushing the shooter. Because Rittenhouse cries convincingly?

No one posting on this thread is going to have an underaged child standing on the street with an AR.

There was no life threatening situation before the original shooting.

I believe GG's gun was legal, but his concealed carry license was expired. Not great, but not the same thing.

He is not on trial for any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

Nobody shot the dumb kid. They were trying to disarm him because he was the threat.

[Anonymous]

If you have a gun, don’t go into the crowd. The kid being stupid and reckless provoked and escalated the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

I'm not saying what would I tell my own child. I'm saying as a society - do we want to encourage people to throw themselves into the middle of chaos, with guns, then give them free license to kill people once they are there when their very presence is amping up the chaos and risk of violence?

Basically he gave himself a get out of jail free ticket to murder people by bringing a gun to a place where having a gun would put his life in danger, allowing him to kill people and then claim self-defense. That's not a great precedent. Do you want to encourage more people to do this? Does that make you feel safer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean do we really want to set the precedent that it's great for a minor to run into the middle of a riot with a gun, amping up the chaos, then say, "well it was chaotic of course he had to shoot people"?

I don't want that precedent!

If your minor was outside in life threatening danger, even if you could argue if they stayed home they would of been safe, and had a gun you'd tell them to use it.

Per eyewitness testimony and the person that got shot, he was pointing a gun to his head. Yes, I'd tell my kid to shoot.

The guy armed with a bag of deodorant?

Oh, you mean the good guy with the gun who was trying to rush the shooter. Funny how the narrative changes depending on whether you like the shooter or not.

You mean the guy who tried to grab his gun and had residue on his hands or the guy who attacked him by hitting him in the head and neck with the skateboard?

Oh, you mean this guy - yes, his own testimony says KR shot in self defense:

Under cross-examination by a lawyer for Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Grosskreutz gave testimony that suggested his role in the events of Aug. 25, 2020, was complicated. Like Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Grosskreutz was armed that night, and he was asked why he had falsely told police detectives shortly after the shooting that his Glock pistol had fallen out of its holster that night — rather than saying he had pulled it out, as visual evidence showed. Under questioning, he also acknowledged that he was carrying the gun concealed without a valid permit to do so and that he had denied a request from the police in September 2020 to interview him about the shootings.

As Mr. Grosskreutz described the seconds before Mr. Rittenhouse shot him, he was shown photos that captured him pointing his gun at Mr. Rittenhouse.

“So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked.

“Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered.

“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said.

“Correct,” he said.

And, if he had shot and/or killed KR, it would have been the same, legally. Self-defense.

Think about what that means.

Yes, exactly! Anyone in that crowd with a gun could have shot people and claimed self-defense. Does that sound right to you? Does it sound reasonable? Does it sound like behavior we want to encourage? Don't you think at the moment you yourself pour gasoline on the fire, you stop getting to claim that you are the victim?