Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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:You would quite literally have to be EXTREMELY STUPID to go an riot in Kenosha (or anywhere) after this verdict. If you learned nothing else from this trial, you should have figured out one thing: Don't go to places where people are looting and rioting if you want to stay alive!

I mean, at it's most basic level, the lesson here is: STAY AWAY FROM RIOTING!

If a white dude has a gun, the lesson will be to shoot him before he shoots you. He has a license to kill you with impunity, so you'd better shoot first.

Well, then there are those who just shoot off their mouth with idiotic statements...

Do you realize everyone involved was white? Do you realize he was threatened in each case and has a LAWFUL right to defend himself with lethal force? Did you watch the trial? Oh, right, thought not.

DP. People with jobs and families don’t have time to sit and watch eight days of trial. You keep making this point about watching the trial, and it’s really telling.

By telling, do you mean that most people have no idea what the trial evidence is, and what exactly transpired that night? If so, then yes, it is very telling.

Spending dozens of hours obsessively watching trial proceedings in which one does not have a direct personal stake or a significant processional interest is indicative of an obsessive need to validate something in oneself.

Dozens of hours? Obsessively watching? I’m not the person who asked if you watched the trial, but making up facts to prove your point isn’t a very good strategy.

It was a 10-day trial. If people actually watched the whole trial as they claim, then yes, it has been dozens of hours of trial proceedings. That is not “making up facts.”

Who said they watched the whole trial?

I certainly hope that anyone claiming to have full knowledge of all of the trial testimony based on having watched it would, in fact, have watched all of the trial testimony. If instead they have only watched select snippets that someone said would support their view of the case, then they are no better off than people who are getting their understanding of the case from news reporting and commentary.

Uh, no. The entire point is the reporting has been horrendous, not based in fact and full of racial undertones that are nonexistent in this case, which became glaringly obvious when the actual evidence and witness testimony was presented. No one is claiming to have watched the whole trial or to have full knowledge, but a little time watching the witness testimony and video footage as well as spending a little time understanding what he was actually charged with and NOT charged with, tells a whole different story than what is reported. The jury saw the entire trial, and of course they will take all of the information into account when deciding, but the misinformation being spread by the media in the meantime is designed to shape narrative and not report, so if that is your only source of info, it is probably best not to comment.

If you are only watching select snippets of testimony out of context, you’re not really much more informed than someone reading new reporting because you’re not getting the full picture either.

The point is that is an unbiased picture. If you watch something like CNN and MSNBC and then watch the trial, you can see exactly what they are trying to do and that is shape a narrative of a vigilante white racist hunting people when race is not even a factor in this tiral. And yes, you can watch the sworn testimony of a man saying he pointed a gun at KR, so KR pointed a rifle back at him, the guy then puts his hands up so KR drops his rifle, and then guy admits to advancing on KR while pointing a gun at his head while he was on the ground, and then he got shot and get a pretty darn good idea what happened. I guarantee you that was not on the CNN or MSNBC coverage I watched and feel fairly certain that it was never discussed in this context. Then you can watch the other eyewitness testimony and videos of the other two shootings and get a pretty good idea. No, it is not 100% of the testimony, but I feel certain I am much more informed than someone reading or watching the news reports because I have done both and have a point of comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

And he did live in that city part time. The parents had a split custody agreement and his dad lived there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

And he did live in that city part time. The parents had a split custody agreement and his dad lived there.

Can you point to that? Earlier reporting says the father has a drug and alcohol problem and they had not seen him in months. The mother and her three kids had to go to a domestic violence shelter three times. Maybe he has appeared since Kyle has raised millions of dollars. Kyle has friends in Kenosha he visited. An adult male his mom let him have over night visits with and who bought the gun with Kyle’s money. I think you are making his split custody family life sound rosey. It’s not Kyle’s fault and is probably a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

But, Rittenhouse crosses a state line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

But, Rittenhouse crosses a state line.

Ok, it is legal to cross State lines, plenty of people did it Today going to work,,,,,

[Anonymous]

Why was KR the one to select the jury numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

And he did live in that city part time. The parents had a split custody agreement and his dad lived there.

Can you point to that? Earlier reporting says the father has a drug and alcohol problem and they had not seen him in months. The mother and her three kids had to go to a domestic violence shelter three times. Maybe he has appeared since Kyle has raised millions of dollars. Kyle has friends in Kenosha he visited. An adult male his mom let him have over night visits with and who bought the gun with Kyle’s money. I think you are making his split custody family life sound rosey. It’s not Kyle’s fault and is probably a factor.

Early in the trial, it was stated he stayed with his father often. I don't remember that is where term shared custody came up or if that was somewhere else. There was one domestic battery charge against the father at one point, but those charges were dropped. The dad has paid his child support all along. The mother is dyslexic and has financial struggles, though, and they have been evicted and lived in a homeless shelter several times, but not a domestic violence shelter as far as I am aware. The dad did have trouble with drugs and alcohol but claims he is clean, for what that is worth. The dad has paid his child support all along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

But, Rittenhouse crosses a state line.

And? Do you know if that has any significance whatsoever in this case, or are you just parroting the purposefully misleading news stories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

But, Rittenhouse crosses a state line.

And? Do you know if that has any significance whatsoever in this case, or are you just parroting the purposefully misleading news stories?

I took that as sarcasm. Exemplifying all the people throwing whatever accusation they can out there, hoping one will stick.

[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:You would quite literally have to be EXTREMELY STUPID to go an riot in Kenosha (or anywhere) after this verdict. If you learned nothing else from this trial, you should have figured out one thing: Don't go to places where people are looting and rioting if you want to stay alive!

I mean, at it's most basic level, the lesson here is: STAY AWAY FROM RIOTING!

If a white dude has a gun, the lesson will be to shoot him before he shoots you. He has a license to kill you with impunity, so you'd better shoot first.

Well, then there are those who just shoot off their mouth with idiotic statements...

Do you realize everyone involved was white? Do you realize he was threatened in each case and has a LAWFUL right to defend himself with lethal force? Did you watch the trial? Oh, right, thought not.

DP. People with jobs and families don’t have time to sit and watch eight days of trial. You keep making this point about watching the trial, and it’s really telling.

By telling, do you mean that most people have no idea what the trial evidence is, and what exactly transpired that night? If so, then yes, it is very telling.

Spending dozens of hours obsessively watching trial proceedings in which one does not have a direct personal stake or a significant processional interest is indicative of an obsessive need to validate something in oneself.

Dozens of hours? Obsessively watching? I’m not the person who asked if you watched the trial, but making up facts to prove your point isn’t a very good strategy.

It was a 10-day trial. If people actually watched the whole trial as they claim, then yes, it has been dozens of hours of trial proceedings. That is not “making up facts.”

Who said they watched the whole trial?

I certainly hope that anyone claiming to have full knowledge of all of the trial testimony based on having watched it would, in fact, have watched all of the trial testimony. If instead they have only watched select snippets that someone said would support their view of the case, then they are no better off than people who are getting their understanding of the case from news reporting and commentary.

Uh, no. The entire point is the reporting has been horrendous, not based in fact and full of racial undertones that are nonexistent in this case, which became glaringly obvious when the actual evidence and witness testimony was presented. No one is claiming to have watched the whole trial or to have full knowledge, but a little time watching the witness testimony and video footage as well as spending a little time understanding what he was actually charged with and NOT charged with, tells a whole different story than what is reported. The jury saw the entire trial, and of course they will take all of the information into account when deciding, but the misinformation being spread by the media in the meantime is designed to shape narrative and not report, so if that is your only source of info, it is probably best not to comment.

If you are only watching select snippets of testimony out of context, you’re not really much more informed than someone reading new reporting because you’re not getting the full picture either.

The point is that is an unbiased picture. If you watch something like CNN and MSNBC and then watch the trial, you can see exactly what they are trying to do and that is shape a narrative of a vigilante white racist hunting people when race is not even a factor in this tiral. And yes, you can watch the sworn testimony of a man saying he pointed a gun at KR, so KR pointed a rifle back at him, the guy then puts his hands up so KR drops his rifle, and then guy admits to advancing on KR while pointing a gun at his head while he was on the ground, and then he got shot and get a pretty darn good idea what happened. I guarantee you that was not on the CNN or MSNBC coverage I watched and feel fairly certain that it was never discussed in this context. Then you can watch the other eyewitness testimony and videos of the other two shootings and get a pretty good idea. No, it is not 100% of the testimony, but I feel certain I am much more informed than someone reading or watching the news reports because I have done both and have a point of comparison.

No, it isn’t. If you watch only one clip of testimony from one witness, you don’t know anything about potential impeachment evidence, including other testimony from the same witness or other witnesses, to assess the credibility and reliability of the witness testimony you did watch.

[Anonymous]

BlueFredneck wrote:Rittenhouse seems like he was spoiling for a fight. You don't cross state lines well-armed to the gills to "protect" a city you (I could be wrong) have no direct connection with unless you're hoping to score some bear. (I'm assuming WI isn't a duty to retreat sort of state.)

The people he shot seemed like standard issue "antifa" thugs, one of whom seemed to act on his liking of teenage girls a little too much, and seemed equally eager for a fight.

Ideally, they could spend some of their jail time together and away from regular people of liberal and conservative persuasions.

But, Antifa does not exist.

Anyway, you are otherwise right: there is no way they can acquit here because Rittenhouse crossed a state line.

CNN has made this much very clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

BlueFredneck wrote:Rittenhouse seems like he was spoiling for a fight. You don't cross state lines well-armed to the gills to "protect" a city you (I could be wrong) have no direct connection with unless you're hoping to score some bear. (I'm assuming WI isn't a duty to retreat sort of state.)

The people he shot seemed like standard issue "antifa" thugs, one of whom seemed to act on his liking of teenage girls a little too much, and seemed equally eager for a fight.

Ideally, they could spend some of their jail time together and away from regular people of liberal and conservative persuasions.

But, Antifa does not exist.

Anyway, you are otherwise right: there is no way they can acquit here because Rittenhouse crossed a state line.

CNN has made this much very clear.

Edit note: ok looks like Kyle’s enormous gun did not actually cross the state line: https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-kyle-rittenhouse-did-not-cross-state-lines-with-an-ar-15.html

But the fact remains:

Kyle crossed a state line!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why was KR the one to select the jury numbers?

WTF? I think this may be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A 17yo went to a city that he didn’t live in, to protect a business he’d never been in, with a gun he wasn’t allow to have, pretending to be something he wasn’t licensed as, killed two people… and will likely be acquitted

OMFG he was allowed to have the gun. Hence the dismissal of the charge.
If you’re going to try and be flip, at least get your facts straight.

But, Rittenhouse crosses a state line.

Cool

Now do the southern border.