Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ah, here’s the person who posted that violent, vulgar, sociopathic post yesterday.

[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.

Reacting by repeatedly bashing the person’s head into a curb will indeed get you shot in self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wow. This post is just unreal.

So, pp - you believe mob justice should prevail? Many experts who have actually watched the trial have predicted an acquittal because the prosecution did not present a strong case - or any real case at all. Many say the charges should have never been brought. The prosecution's own witnesses were stronger for the defense.

And, yet, your idea of "justice" is what the violent rioters want. Forget what is real justice. Forget what the evidence has shown.
You believe the jury should be threatened into a verdict that would satisfy the blood-thirsty mob.

My God. Thank goodness you are not on this jury. I hope you are never called to serve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ah, here’s the person who posted that violent, vulgar, sociopathic post yesterday.

And apparently loves mob rule. I think this cements my thinking that some of the posters on this thread are indeed Antifa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ah, here’s the person who posted that violent, vulgar, sociopathic post yesterday.

And apparently loves mob rule. I think this cements my thinking that some of the posters on this thread are indeed Antifa.

+1 Lawless imbeciles……a bunch of emasculated losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we abolish police, we'll get even more of this kind of thing.

Hey dummy - no one wants to abolish the police. What needs to be done are most current police need to be shown the door, and a whole new police force needs to be hired nationwide - federalized, like the TSA - to replace all these little racist podunk police departments. A federalized police force can be curated carefully to ensure that the officers are the type of people with the proper demeanor who are antiracists and working towards social justice. By federalizing them, it eliminates local corruption and influences. Often it’s racists who join hometown police departments and they are entrenched in that community. The racist power structure is perpetuated through the whole department. By having a force composed of people from other places who are assigned to areas rather than locals drawn from the area, this familiarity is eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we abolish police, we'll get even more of this kind of thing.

Hey dummy - no one wants to abolish the police. What needs to be done are most current police need to be shown the door, and a whole new police force needs to be hired nationwide - federalized, like the TSA - to replace all these little racist podunk police departments. A federalized police force can be curated carefully to ensure that the officers are the type of people with the proper demeanor who are antiracists and working towards social justice. By federalizing them, it eliminates local corruption and influences. Often it’s racists who join hometown police departments and they are entrenched in that community. The racist power structure is perpetuated through the whole department. By having a force composed of people from other places who are assigned to areas rather than locals drawn from the area, this familiarity is eliminated.

LOL. And, as long as they have the *right* kind of thinking, politically speaking, we are good with that.
How very fascist of you, pp.

Have you not learned that we really don't believe your claims of racism anymore? You know.... the boy that cried wolf, and all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we abolish police, we'll get even more of this kind of thing.

Hey dummy - no one wants to abolish the police. What needs to be done are most current police need to be shown the door, and a whole new police force needs to be hired nationwide - federalized, like the TSA - to replace all these little racist podunk police departments. A federalized police force can be curated carefully to ensure that the officers are the type of people with the proper demeanor who are antiracists and working towards social justice. By federalizing them, it eliminates local corruption and influences. Often it’s racists who join hometown police departments and they are entrenched in that community. The racist power structure is perpetuated through the whole department. By having a force composed of people from other places who are assigned to areas rather than locals drawn from the area, this familiarity is eliminated.

Yes, because there are no racists in the Armed Forces. Tell me you’re a dolt without saying you’re a dolt.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone answer PP’s question?

If Rittenhouse was a 17 year old girl who was chased into a car lot by a convicted serial rapist who literally just was released from a mental institution and ended up shooting the serial rapist would any of you seriously be arguing that the 17 year old girl should be on trial for murder? Would you also say stuff like “the girl didn’t even know he was a convicted serial rapist” as a rationale for putting the girl on trial for murder? Would some of you go even further and wish the girl was locked up forever and have prison justice and abuse dealt out to her for killing a convicted serial rapist?

Lets assume all the facts are the same. She has an AR 15, Rosenbaum looks the same but has a different criminal past, protest is the same, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Your post in anti American. You’re talking about throwing out our entire legal system. I want Rittenhouse to be convicted of some charges, but I’m against jury tampering and I want the jurors to follow the law in arriving at their verdict. I’m one of the people who has been posting that Rittenhouse created the circumstances in which he needed to defend himself, by breaking the law in the first place. I don’t want to see him skate on all serious charges, but I’m mature enough to accept that my feelings have nothing to do with the verdict.

I’ve served on a jury (drunk driving, but the driver hadn’t hit anyone or anything) and all 12 of us believed the defendant was guilty, but we also knew that the prosecutor had failed to prove the case because the arresting officer (rookie, it was his first arrest) had omitted some important details in documenting the arrest and could no longer recall that information. Then, on the witness stand, the officer tried to sneak in some information about the defendant’s prior drunk driving arrests that the judge had ruled were too prejudicial to be allowed in this trial. The judge instructed us to disregard that information. Coincidentally, the public defender, also a newbie, tried to influence us by writing ACQUIT on the back of his legal pad, from which he read his closing argument. He angled it so the jury could see it, but not the judge or opposing counsel. We, the jury, were offended that he tried that on us. We believed the defendant was guilty as hell and we thought the public defender was shady, but we followed the judge’s instructions not to take into account the prior convictions. The prosecutor had been unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. We acquitted the defendant, even though we didn’t feel good about it, because that was the law. I want this jury to do its best to follow the law, whether I like the outcome or not, because our legal system depends on it. If you or I were ever accused of a crime, we’d want a fair and impartial jury too.

P.S. I reported your vile prison rape comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[..]So, pp - you believe mob justice should prevail? […]

In supporting Rittenhouse, you are supporting mob justice.

You’re supporting white supremacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone answer PP’s question?

If Rittenhouse was a 17 year old girl who was chased into a car lot by a convicted serial rapist who literally just was released from a mental institution and ended up shooting the serial rapist would any of you seriously be arguing that the 17 year old girl should be on trial for murder? Would you also say stuff like “the girl didn’t even know he was a convicted serial rapist” as a rationale for putting the girl on trial for murder? Would some of you go even further and wish the girl was locked up forever and have prison justice and abuse dealt out to her for killing a convicted serial rapist?

Lets assume all the facts are the same. She has an AR 15, Rosenbaum looks the same but has a different criminal past, protest is the same, etc.

If the girl had no more knowledge of Rosenbaum’s criminal history, and no more belief that Rosenbaum was trying to rape her than Rittenhouse had, then yes, it would be the same. Rosenbaum was verbally menacing in threatening to kill Rittenhouse, and then he threw a shopping bag at Kyle and tried to grab Kyle’s gun. That doesn’t equal attempted rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[..]So, pp - you believe mob justice should prevail? […]

In supporting Rittenhouse, you are supporting mob justice.

You’re supporting white supremacy.

No. If a black teen killed a white convicted serial child molester who chased him into a car lot while the black teen was armed at an unruly anti vax protest I would be singing the same tune.

Now ask yourself if Rosenbaum was a Trump supporter and Rittenhouse was a black teen how much would Rosenbaum’s seedy past be all over the media? How many times a day would you see the video of Rosenbaum saying the n word playing on CNN and MSNBC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone answer PP’s question?

If Rittenhouse was a 17 year old girl who was chased into a car lot by a convicted serial rapist who literally just was released from a mental institution and ended up shooting the serial rapist would any of you seriously be arguing that the 17 year old girl should be on trial for murder? Would you also say stuff like “the girl didn’t even know he was a convicted serial rapist” as a rationale for putting the girl on trial for murder? Would some of you go even further and wish the girl was locked up forever and have prison justice and abuse dealt out to her for killing a convicted serial rapist?

Lets assume all the facts are the same. She has an AR 15, Rosenbaum looks the same but has a different criminal past, protest is the same, etc.

If the girl had no more knowledge of Rosenbaum’s criminal history, and no more belief that Rosenbaum was trying to rape her than Rittenhouse had, then yes, it would be the same. Rosenbaum was verbally menacing in threatening to kill Rittenhouse, and then he threw a shopping bag at Kyle and tried to grab Kyle’s gun. That doesn’t equal attempted rape.

No it wouldn’t and you know it. Stop being daft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Omg wtf did I just read?!?