Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that three men, a couple with serious criminal histories, were there that night to ‘be good people’? JFC

The odds are 100%. Because they were all unarmed.

There is LITERALLY a photograph of one of the men with a pistol. Another had a skateboard and was using it as a weapon.

A pistol or a skateboard against a big gun is still essentially unarmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that three men, a couple with serious criminal histories, were there that night to ‘be good people’? JFC

The odds are 100%. Because they were all unarmed.

There is LITERALLY a photograph of one of the men with a pistol. Another had a skateboard and was using it as a weapon.

A pistol or a skateboard against a big gun is still essentially unarmed.

"big gun"

What a crap comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that three men, a couple with serious criminal histories, were there that night to ‘be good people’? JFC

The odds are 100%. Because they were all unarmed.

There is LITERALLY a photograph of one of the men with a pistol. Another had a skateboard and was using it as a weapon.

A pistol or a skateboard against a big gun is still essentially unarmed.

"big gun"

What a crap comment.

lol

It's better than saying that Skateboard Guy was armed.

[Anonymous]

Turley explains why the 6th count was dropped and how the prosecution, in bringing this charge against Rittenhouse, demonstrates their over-reach and rush to bring charges to essentially satisfy the mob.

[Anonymous]

Good job Kenosha! Rittenhouse is going to walk, your city is going to burn, and lots of right-wing nutjobs are going to show up with their AR-15s to claim self-defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My impression, as someone with experience in both criminal defense and prosecution, is that these particular prosecutors are stuck trying a case that they know is terribly weak. The decision to charge Rittenhouse was likely made by their bosses to appease a certain public demand. But now they are in a bind trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence just isn't there. Imagine trying to prove up these charges when all the key witnesses to the incidents in question can offer testimony favorable to the defense. Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of all charges. But it won't be because anyone took a dive. It will be because an impartial look at all the evidence provides ample grounds for self-defense and the prosecution could not get within a country mile of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My impression, as someone with experience in both criminal defense and prosecution, is that these particular prosecutors are stuck trying a case that they know is terribly weak. The decision to charge Rittenhouse was likely made by their bosses to appease a certain public demand. But now they are in a bind trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence just isn't there. Imagine trying to prove up these charges when all the key witnesses to the incidents in question can offer testimony favorable to the defense. Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of all charges. But it won't be because anyone took a dive. It will be because an impartial look at all the evidence provides ample grounds for self-defense and the prosecution could not get within a country mile of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is undisputed evidence that the […]

In other words, you were a right wing extremist prosecutor who doesn’t care for the law.

Facts:
1) that thug Rittenhouse had zero reason to be there. He was from another state. He showed up just to make trouble.
2) With a gun he was too young to have purchased.
3) That he arranged to have a friend purchase for him since he wasn’t legally able to own a gun.

In groups and out groups and you RWNJ will twist yourselves until you’re purple in the face to try and make mob violence legal so long as it’s fellow white supremacists doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My impression, as someone with experience in both criminal defense and prosecution, is that these particular prosecutors are stuck trying a case that they know is terribly weak. The decision to charge Rittenhouse was likely made by their bosses to appease a certain public demand. But now they are in a bind trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence just isn't there. Imagine trying to prove up these charges when all the key witnesses to the incidents in question can offer testimony favorable to the defense. Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of all charges. But it won't be because anyone took a dive. It will be because an impartial look at all the evidence provides ample grounds for self-defense and the prosecution could not get within a country mile of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is undisputed evidence that the […]

In other words, you were a right wing extremist prosecutor who doesn’t care for the law.

Facts:
1) that thug Rittenhouse had zero reason to be there. He was from another state. He showed up just to make trouble.
2) With a gun he was too young to have purchased.
3) That he arranged to have a friend purchase for him since he wasn’t legally able to own a gun.

In groups and out groups and you RWNJ will twist yourselves until you’re purple in the face to try and make mob violence legal so long as it’s fellow white supremacists doing it.

I suppose there is a first time for everything as I've never before been called a right wing extremist. I'm far from it. I am not going to defend every decision Rittenhouse made before, during, or after that night. The impression I got from watching all the video available is that he was quite immature, even for a 17 year old, and did not truly appreciate the volatile nature of the situation in Kenosha that night. I am not opposed to people taking steps to protect public and private property, but things can go sideways very quickly even for experienced law enforcement officers. But all the evidence available shows that Rittenhouse did not use any force at all until he was quite literally chased down by an unbalanced individual who then lunged for his rifle. I truly believe the decision to prosecute him was driven by politics and not the law. I just don't see how any line prosecutor would review the video evidence and witness statements and then file these kinds of charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My impression, as someone with experience in both criminal defense and prosecution, is that these particular prosecutors are stuck trying a case that they know is terribly weak. The decision to charge Rittenhouse was likely made by their bosses to appease a certain public demand. But now they are in a bind trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence just isn't there. Imagine trying to prove up these charges when all the key witnesses to the incidents in question can offer testimony favorable to the defense. Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of all charges. But it won't be because anyone took a dive. It will be because an impartial look at all the evidence provides ample grounds for self-defense and the prosecution could not get within a country mile of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

I'm familiar with the provocation instruction, but I am not aware of any testimony during the trial that shows provocation on Rittenhouse's part, unless you think that him carrying the rifle was itself some sort of provocation. I do not believe it is. I don't believe any witness testified to Rittenhouse "provoking" the individual who chased after him (the man's name escapes me).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is undisputed evidence that the […]

In other words, you were a right wing extremist prosecutor who doesn’t care for the law.

Facts:
1) that thug Rittenhouse had zero reason to be there. He was from another state. He showed up just to make trouble.
2) With a gun he was too young to have purchased.
3) That he arranged to have a friend purchase for him since he wasn’t legally able to own a gun.

In groups and out groups and you RWNJ will twist yourselves until you’re purple in the face to try and make mob violence legal so long as it’s fellow white supremacists doing it.

I suppose there is a first time for everything as I've never before been called a right wing extremist. I'm far from it. I am not going to defend every decision Rittenhouse made before, during, or after that night. The impression I got from watching all the video available is that he was quite immature, even for a 17 year old, and did not truly appreciate the volatile nature of the situation in Kenosha that night. I am not opposed to people taking steps to protect public and private property, but things can go sideways very quickly even for experienced law enforcement officers. But all the evidence available shows that Rittenhouse did not use any force at all until he was quite literally chased down by an unbalanced individual who then lunged for his rifle. I truly believe the decision to prosecute him was driven by politics and not the law. I just don't see how any line prosecutor would review the video evidence and witness statements and then file these kinds of charges.

Thank you! Finally, someone who actually watched the trial and understands the charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is undisputed evidence that the […]

In other words, you were a right wing extremist prosecutor who doesn’t care for the law.

Facts:
1) that thug Rittenhouse had zero reason to be there. He was from another state. He showed up just to make trouble.
2) With a gun he was too young to have purchased.
3) That he arranged to have a friend purchase for him since he wasn’t legally able to own a gun.

In groups and out groups and you RWNJ will twist yourselves until you’re purple in the face to try and make mob violence legal so long as it’s fellow white supremacists doing it.

1) It is irrelevant why he was there.
2) He was old enough to have the gun, he did not buy it, he borrowed it
3) See #2

[Anonymous]

If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that three men, a couple with serious criminal histories, were there that night to ‘be good people’? JFC

The odds are 100%. Because they were all unarmed.

There is LITERALLY a photograph of one of the men with a pistol. Another had a skateboard and was using it as a weapon.

A pistol or a skateboard against a big gun is still essentially unarmed.

Haha I doubt you’d think that if a man was pointing that gun or swinging that skateboard at your head.