Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

Of course it was an active shooter situation. He shot an unarmed man and minutes later was still in the immediate vicinity running around with his gun in hand. Not slung over his shoulder. In hand. What's an active shooter if not that? Is there a "minimum number of people I just shot within a certain time period" in order for me to qualify as active?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

By this logic, it would only be lawful for a policeman to shoot someone during the fraction of a second between the time when a criminal pulls the trigger and the time when the bullet passes by the police officer. Because after that fraction of a second is over, then the criminal isn't an active threat. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

He shot three people, are you serious right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

Of course it was an active shooter situation. He shot an unarmed man and minutes later was still in the immediate vicinity running around with his gun in hand. Not slung over his shoulder. In hand. What's an active shooter if not that? Is there a "minimum number of people I just shot within a certain time period" in order for me to qualify as active?!

+1

That NP was wrong. An active shooter situation continues until the suspect is apprehended or killed or if it's determined that there was no shooting, as sometimes happens. Here, there was a shooting and a suspect at large, armed and dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

Wrong. The first video clearly shows him running away, being chased and and then shooting the person chasing him. Shooter did not shoot until after he was chased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

[Anonymous]

Trump supporting thug killer.

[Anonymous]

Once you have an AR-15 in your hand, you can shoot anyone who chases you or looks at you wrong. If you're an invincible kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

[Anonymous]

Looks like the guy that was shot in the head was a registered sex offender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

PS. It will also depend on who made the first threatening move and how that was interpreted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

In the first video, the person chasing shooter throws something that is on fire at the shooter (whether a piece of garbage or something more serious). If you’re cornered by someone who has thrown an item that is on fire at you after chasing you would it be reasonable to believe you are imminent grave danger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

PS. It will also depend on who made the first threatening move and how that was interpreted.

Not quite. When shooter decided to run away in the first video, the situation basically resets at that moment for purposes of self defense law in Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

PS. It will also depend on who made the first threatening move and how that was interpreted.

When one guy has a gun and the other guy has nothing, the one who started it isn't so important anymore.