Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

That's not true. Even if you provoke someone but you feel you are in imminent danger of dying you can claim self defense. See George Zimmerman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

That's not true. Even if you provoke someone but you feel you are in imminent danger of dying you can claim self defense. See George Zimmerman.

The George Zimmerman case was a complete and utter travesty. It basically legalizes murder because by the Zimmerman logic you legally murder anyone you want by picking a fight with them and then gunning them down in "self defense" the minute they react.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

In typical democrat fashion, that is a misleading description of events. The judge was very dubious but ended up saying that he would let the prosecution try to argue that point in closing arguments, but making it clear that he expected the defense to easily rebut it. The judge wanted to leave the decisions on this case to the jury as much as possible.

The prosecution still does not have a case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

NP. That admission into evidence was ridiculous IMO. If you have to zoom, enhance, point, squint, and replay 20x to maybe see a blur of something on a ultra high def 4k tv, then it shouldn't be admitted because at that point you are just seeing what you want to see. Plus, nobody who was there that night testified this ever happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

That's not true. Even if you provoke someone but you feel you are in imminent danger of dying you can claim self defense. See George Zimmerman.

Different states; different laws you internet lawyer, you. 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The George Zimmerman case was a complete and utter travesty. It basically legalizes murder because by the Zimmerman logic you legally murder anyone you want by picking a fight with them and then gunning them down in "self defense" the minute they react.

That’s the way the GOP operates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

You actually can. The people you provoke don't have to take the bait. If you run away, they don't have to chase you
If they corner you, they don't have to try to take your gun away. It would be different if KR had not run away. Running away from a confrontation should be the end of it. Unless of course you are like Rosenbaum and are dumb enough to chase a guy with a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that Kyle’s beliefs and background have literally nothing to do with this trial?

They have everything to do with this trial. Why else would the pig drive to another state armed?!

He crossed state lines to go from his mother’s house in IL to go to his father’s house in Kenosha, WI. The weapon didn’t cross state lines and was provided to Kyle in Kenosha.

He was violated the citywide curfew and WI law that prohibits minors from carrying a long gun, except for 16 and 17 year olds with the express purpose of hunting. He had cleaned up graffiti and used his medic kit earlier in the day.

So you are saying that an illegal straw purchase and being in possession of a long gun (legal for hunting) in a riot zone is ok? So you are saying he was hunting (rioters)?

Because I don't think there are many deer in downtown Kenosha in the summertime, and besides, buck season is in the fall, not summer.

So...?

He stated that he was there to protect a business……why are struggling to understand that?

Business owners know that you don't protect property with a gun.

Rittenhouse knew better.

The Korean business owners in L.A. protected their businesses with guns in 1992

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

That's not true. Even if you provoke someone but you feel you are in imminent danger of dying you can claim self defense. See George Zimmerman.

Different states; different laws you internet lawyer, you. 😂

Wisconsin 939.48 section 2a- Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

If he can prove he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death and was unable to get away he can claim self defense.

[Anonymous]

Seems like some of the media is starting to wake up about this case:

[youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0J09bdRTgA[/youtube]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin self-defense requires an objectively reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

No one else in the group was threatened. Why was KR objectively reasonably threatened but the others weren't?

Because, in addition to the threats, Rosenbaum chased him down, cornering him and attempting to seize his rifle.

This is really all there is to it. The jury would have to find that KR could not possibly be afraid of a man who had threatened him and chased him into a corner. How would that work? Do people run away when they are not afraid? Does someone who threatened you then chased you mean you no harm?

You can't claim self defense if you provoke the confrontation. The judge today allowed the admission of an FBI drone video that shows Kyle putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then pointing his AR-15 at a crowd of people right before Rosenbaum chased him.

Also, Kyle is the only person who says Rosenbaum threatened him twice, and in all the hours of video available there's nothing that shows the 2nd encounter between the two.

That's not true. Even if you provoke someone but you feel you are in imminent danger of dying you can claim self defense. See George Zimmerman.

The George Zimmerman case was a complete and utter travesty. It basically legalizes murder because by the Zimmerman logic you legally murder anyone you want by picking a fight with them and then gunning them down in "self defense" the minute they react.

Apparently you didn't see the trial. He was violently attacked by T.M. He had 6 separate injuries from having his head pummeled onto the cement. T.M. was the one that picked that fight, and lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like some of the media is starting to wake up about this case:

[youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0J09bdRTgA[/youtube]

This never should have gone to trial. I do like the comments, people see the same thing from the video. Thugs being thugs during a riot.

[Anonymous]

I hope the jurors realize their culpability in rendering a verdict that might cause further unrest. If there is an acquittal, the violence that follows will be on them. That bloodshed will be on their hands. Hopefully someone has communicated this to these people.