Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

BTW, the car lot that Rittenhouse was "guarding" had already been burned the night before and the owners didn't ask anyone to guard it.

But the co-owner of Car Source said Thursday he didn't hire the men, ask for their help or endorse it.

"Why would I?" Anmol Khindri said, in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I'm already burned out. There was nothing left to protect."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/09/03/kenosha-car-dealer-denies-he-asked-gunmen-protect-his-business/5705974002/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should arrest the perp tonight on violating his victims civil rights.
The prosecutors should be disbarred for failure to do their jobs.
The feds need to thoroughly investigate the judge and each member of the jury, diving deep into each person’s personal, professional, and financial conduct to see if there was possible collusion with the defense.

Do you believe this in the best interest of justice?

I care more about setting a precedent against white supremacist vigilantism than I care about justice. Let’s focus on the bigger issue, mmm’k?

Ok. Just understand you might find yourself explaining why you chose violence to a jury as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We tried to explain to you guys back in page 6 that this was a weak case. You didn’t believe us.

We tuned you out because as a white nationalist racist, your crazy yammering was irrelevant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should arrest the perp tonight on violating his victims civil rights.
The prosecutors should be disbarred for failure to do their jobs.
The feds need to thoroughly investigate the judge and each member of the jury, diving deep into each person’s personal, professional, and financial conduct to see if there was possible collusion with the defense.

Do you believe this in the best interest of justice?

I care more about setting a precedent against white supremacist vigilantism than I care about justice. Let’s focus on the bigger issue, mmm’k?

Ok. Just understand you might find yourself explaining why you chose violence to a jury as well.

What dumb thing to say. I’m so embarrassed for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched Kyle give testimony, his cross examination, plus two more days of proceedings plus closing arguments by both sides plus rebuttal by prosecutors to closing arguments by defense, plus judge’s instructions to jury of all different charges. I felt that the defense hit it out of the ballpark. The prosecutors did a poor job. I am not surprised by the verdict and I am a lay person.

+1000.

Everyone: turn off MSNBC, turn off CNN.

They are not telling you the truth anymore.

CNN referred to Rittenhouse as a yahoo. Not a huge deal but it's biased, inflammatory, and unprofessional. Chris Cuomo.

It's an opinion show.

Yeah. And referring to teenagers who are from working class backgrounds as yahoos is unprofessional and indecent. All the more coming from a rich elite sanctimonious thug.

Is it more or less unprofessional than a POTUS who is a rich elite calling people names?

Great point. I'd say it's THE SAME.

you think a talking on a news network should be held to the same standards as a POTUS? Oh my. No wonder we got Trump.

You lack comprehension and logic. But OK. Have fun at the Cuomo fan club retreat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't really following the story, but why was this kid there toting what looks to be a semiautomatic?

To protect a car lot from these rioters who wanted to burn the cars. Because he interfered with that, they went after Rittenhouse and tried to kill him.

Was he under 18 at the time? Why was a minor carrying a semiautomatic rifle and why was he trying to protect the car lot? Did his family own it? That's crazy that a 17 yr old was there with a semiautomatic.

It’s legal in Wisconsin

If he didn’t have it he would be dead trying to protect the car lot from being destroyed

It is legal - in Wisconsin- to go Deer hunting with your Dad and Grandpa as long as they are agreeing to be responsible for the gun they loan you

It is NOT legal to go into a mob- with no adult supervision with an semi automatic weapon with 30 rounds in it strapped to you

By your logic, school shooters are also " just protecting themselves against bullies"

It's not really legal anywhere to protect a business after curfew as a minor with a questionably legal gun. Not in Wisconsin. Not anywhere in the US.

Which is why no one has claimed that as a defense or rationale.

So, a 17 yr old who had no business being there with a semiautomatic rifle felt threatened and then shot three people? I mean, maybe it wasn't "murder" per se, but seems he has some culpability there.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that he was actually threatened and threatened. It was not a subjective feeling. I am just astounded by the amount of people who cling to false narratives just because they dislike the defendant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the jury made the right call. The precedent this sets wasn't the jury's job.

Now it's time for the real work. States need to get rid of open carry and ban concealed carry in public places. Or any physical threat will be used to justify gun violence.

Watched a vid where an Asian girl got beat to hell by a bunch of black teens and another with a Hijab on public transportation. She wasn’t armed so she politely just took the beating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MSNBC has updated their headline. Curious what changed their mind.

The main pages of news websites change constantly, dear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what this verdict is saying, is that anyone can take a firearm to a protest they disagree with, and if someone tries to disarm them, they can shoot with no impunity, yes?

I don’t even think they need to try to disarm you. According to this, you can just shoot them because they’re allies of Black people. Hooray NRA! ‘Murica!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the jury made the right call. The precedent this sets wasn't the jury's job.

Now it's time for the real work. States need to get rid of open carry and ban concealed carry in public places. Or any physical threat will be used to justify gun violence.

Watched a vid where an Asian girl got beat to hell by a bunch of black teens and another with a Hijab on public transportation. She wasn’t armed so she politely just took the beating

And if those girls and the guys beating them were all carrying AR 15s, then would that have been better?

Or is it better to be armed with a phone camera?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should arrest the perp tonight on violating his victims civil rights.
The prosecutors should be disbarred for failure to do their jobs.
The feds need to thoroughly investigate the judge and each member of the jury, diving deep into each person’s personal, professional, and financial conduct to see if there was possible collusion with the defense.

Do you believe this in the best interest of justice?

I care more about setting a precedent against white supremacist vigilantism than I care about justice. Let’s focus on the bigger issue, mmm’k?

Ok. Just understand you might find yourself explaining why you chose violence to a jury as well.

What dumb thing to say. I’m so embarrassed for you.

You're the one advocating for jury intimidation and violence. I'm not sure that our values are aligned enough for me to care what you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the jury made the right call. The precedent this sets wasn't the jury's job.

Now it's time for the real work. States need to get rid of open carry and ban concealed carry in public places. Or any physical threat will be used to justify gun violence.

Watched a vid where an Asian girl got beat to hell by a bunch of black teens and another with a Hijab on public transportation. She wasn’t armed so she politely just took the beating

And no one died. That’s how it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what this verdict is saying, is that anyone can take a firearm to a protest they disagree with, and if someone tries to disarm them, they can shoot with no impunity, yes?

I don’t even think they need to try to disarm you. According to this, you can just shoot them because they’re allies of Black people. Hooray NRA! ‘Murica!!!

Are you guys propagandists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what this verdict is saying, is that anyone can take a firearm to a protest they disagree with, and if someone tries to disarm them, they can shoot with no impunity, yes?

I don’t even think they need to try to disarm you. According to this, you can just shoot them because they’re allies of Black people. Hooray NRA! ‘Murica!!!

Are you guys propagandists?

Nope. Just outraged human beings. A rich racist white kid can murder three people in cold blood with a battle cannon and he walks away because a jury of his fellow racist peers are cool with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't really following the story, but why was this kid there toting what looks to be a semiautomatic?

To protect a car lot from these rioters who wanted to burn the cars. Because he interfered with that, they went after Rittenhouse and tried to kill him.

Was he under 18 at the time? Why was a minor carrying a semiautomatic rifle and why was he trying to protect the car lot? Did his family own it? That's crazy that a 17 yr old was there with a semiautomatic.

It’s legal in Wisconsin

If he didn’t have it he would be dead trying to protect the car lot from being destroyed

It is legal - in Wisconsin- to go Deer hunting with your Dad and Grandpa as long as they are agreeing to be responsible for the gun they loan you

It is NOT legal to go into a mob- with no adult supervision with an semi automatic weapon with 30 rounds in it strapped to you

By your logic, school shooters are also " just protecting themselves against bullies"

It's not really legal anywhere to protect a business after curfew as a minor with a questionably legal gun. Not in Wisconsin. Not anywhere in the US.

Which is why no one has claimed that as a defense or rationale.

So, a 17 yr old who had no business being there with a semiautomatic rifle felt threatened and then shot three people? I mean, maybe it wasn't "murder" per se, but seems he has some culpability there.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that he was actually threatened and threatened. It was not a subjective feeling. I am just astounded by the amount of people who cling to false narratives just because they dislike the defendant.

CNN of all places, not FOX, has been spending hours talking about how the verdict was correct. The facts in the case do not have anything in common with what was said in the beginning. No evidence this guy was racist at all. Should you go to a rally or a riot with a gun -- no of course not -- you should stay far away. But that has nothing to do with this case. The focus is just on the incident not why people were there or whether it was stupid that he be there. This is not a close case for liability and the guy should not have been charged at all.