Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW I remember how back in the Kent State days there were plenty of people who defended the Guard soldiers who killed 4 college students and paralyzed a fifth. There seems to be little hope for such people.

Are you comparing the Kent State protesters to those who looted and burned Kenosha?

The Kenosha protesters were protesting something more serious than the Kent State protesters, but it's a matter of degree.

The Kent State protesters were principled heroes. The Kenosha protesters were actually rioters, looters and common criminals......utter losers and the dregs of society.

The right wingers who showed up to instigate trouble and shoot people are losers and dregs of society, I agree.

Because across the country it was shown that the protestors were peaceful, and then trouble showed up in the form of white supremacist degenerates looking to start a race war. And you don’t even know that because you’re a victim of right wing propaganda.

There certainly was propaganda:

“Conservative firing line.”

If that fire was like the ones in my town, they were set by right wingers bent on giving racists something to grouse about, which is exactly what I implied in my pp and something that you completely missed. Kyle Rittenhouse showed up with an illegal gun and killed two people. Turns out there were a sht ton of right wing agitators.

1. The gun was not illegal.
2. The rioters/agitators were not right wing.
3. He shot people in self defense, after they attacked him first.

It’s important to get the facts right.

[Anonymous]

Rittenhouse claimed he was hit in the head with a baseball bat and skateboard. Medics did not see any bruising or cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW I remember how back in the Kent State days there were plenty of people who defended the Guard soldiers who killed 4 college students and paralyzed a fifth. There seems to be little hope for such people.

Are you comparing the Kent State protesters to those who looted and burned Kenosha?

The Kenosha protesters were protesting something more serious than the Kent State protesters, but it's a matter of degree.

The Kent State protesters were principled heroes. The Kenosha protesters were actually rioters, looters and common criminals......utter losers and the dregs of society.

The right wingers who showed up to instigate trouble and shoot people are losers and dregs of society, I agree.

Because across the country it was shown that the protestors were peaceful, and then trouble showed up in the form of white supremacist degenerates looking to start a race war. And you don’t even know that because you’re a victim of right wing propaganda.

It baffles me that people can be this misinformed. Looking at the facts of the case without a biased lens, this is a clear-cut case of self-defense.

Where were sensitive snowflake Kyle's injuries from being "assualted"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FWIW I remember how back in the Kent State days there were plenty of people who defended the Guard soldiers who killed 4 college students and paralyzed a fifth. There seems to be little hope for such people.

Are you comparing the Kent State protesters to those who looted and burned Kenosha?

The Kenosha protesters were protesting something more serious than the Kent State protesters, but it's a matter of degree.

The Kent State protesters were principled heroes. The Kenosha protesters were actually rioters, looters and common criminals......utter losers and the dregs of society.

The right wingers who showed up to instigate trouble and shoot people are losers and dregs of society, I agree.

Because across the country it was shown that the protestors were peaceful, and then trouble showed up in the form of white supremacist degenerates looking to start a race war. And you don’t even know that because you’re a victim of right wing propaganda.

It baffles me that people can be this misinformed. Looking at the facts of the case without a biased lens, this is a clear-cut case of self-defense.

The Kenosha County Sheriff said that Rittenhouse was part of a vigilante group out "patrolling" the streets. They were looking for a fight. They had guns. They wanted an encounter. You need to be honest about what happened white man.

[Anonymous]

Rosenbaum was clearly unarmed. He was following Rittenhouse but that gives Rittenhouse no right to shoot and kill an unarmed person.

[Anonymous]

Rittenhouse provoked the incident by by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse should have walked away instead of shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rittenhouse provoked the incident by by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse should have walked away instead of shooting.

Your first sentence is not supported by evidence.

[Anonymous]

Let's talk some more facts...

Victim Huber ran toward Rittenhouse and tried to disarm him, you know, since he had just killed an innocent person. Huber was trying to protect other innocent people after a rwnj had just murdered someone.

As Huber tried to disarm thug Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse shot him. There is no evidence that Huber attacked that creep Rittenhouse with his skateboard. Kyle lies a lot.

[Anonymous]

This: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defense-role-model/620715/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rittenhouse provoked the incident by by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse should have walked away instead of shooting.

Your first sentence is not supported by evidence.

It was testimony in the trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rittenhouse provoked the incident by by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse should have walked away instead of shooting.

Your first sentence is not supported by evidence.

It was testimony in the trial.

There was testimony that contradicted that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
3. He shot people in self defense, after they attacked him first.

I don't know Wisconsin law, but in general there's an idea that self-defense doesn't apply when a bad situation you created yourself gets out of hand. My question is whether that concept has the potential to negate Rittenhouse's claims of self defense. How much of the danger he faced (if any) was of his own making?

[Anonymous]

The jury does not have access to the video in the jury room so they just sent a note to the judge asking if they can watch some of the video. The judge doesn't know what the Wisconsin case law says about the procedure for a jury watching video evidence so they're researching it.

[Anonymous]

So much of the discussion in this thread seems to be stuck on the fact that Rittenhouse is a dumbass who made bad choices. That’s probably true, but doesn’t have much to do with his self defense claim.

Anyway, I’m not shedding any tears for the rioters he shot. No big loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rittenhouse provoked the incident by by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse should have walked away instead of shooting.

Your first sentence is not supported by evidence.

It was testimony in the trial.

There was testimony that contradicted that.

The prosecution said that the contradictory testimony was hearsay, as in, it was alleged, but no proof was given. The contradiction was a "he said, she said" claim. The prosecution instead offered FBI footage that suggests that Rittenhouse provoked the incident by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum first.