Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Just curious - are there any actual lawyers on here that disagree with the verdict?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The jury deliberated for 5 days. It wasn't a clear case and very reasonable to have been charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes that is the law now and it has always been the law --- no NRA change to the law here. If you question is should he have -- of course not. But yes he can legally. And no they do not need to disarm you for you to shoot them -- no. If you are in actual fear of death or bodily harm and that fear was reasonable then yes you can shoot them.

If anyone thinks this kid is rich they are nuts. And as people have said -- it was not in cold blood. Those are not the facts.

[Anonymous]

[/twitter]https://twitter.com/i/status/1461202343270232064

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. No one is advocating violence. However, in the interest of justice, following up with ensuring none of the jury members or judge was on the take or being intimidated by the defense is a fair thing to ask. The perp unquestionably did violate the civil rights of the protesters, so the feds need to prosecute him. The prosecution furthermore was grossly negligent is discharging its duties and those sad examples of the legal profession need to be made an example of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The jury deliberated for 5 days. It wasn't a clear case and very reasonable to have been charged.

They deliberated for that long because they did their job and looked over all of the evidence. If the jury talks we will see how close. I doubt it was very close. Most juries do not vote until they have looked at the key evidence and everyone has had a say. I doubt there were even 2 people for conviction at the start. But we will see if the jury speaks to the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious - are there any actual lawyers on here that disagree with the verdict?

I would be surprised. Former prosecutor here and I assumed it would be not guilty or the judge would throw the verdict out based on the Constitutional violation around remaining silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. No one is advocating violence. However, in the interest of justice, following up with ensuring none of the jury members or judge was on the take or being intimidated by the defense is a fair thing to ask. The perp unquestionably did violate the civil rights of the protesters, so the feds need to prosecute him. The prosecution furthermore was grossly negligent is discharging its duties and those sad examples of the legal profession need to be made an example of.

LOL. Pray tell, how exactly did the defendant violate their civil rights? You may want to familiarize yourself with the pertinent statutes. And these were not protesters. They were rioters engaging in the destruction of a community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your comment promotes anti-Asian violence.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully Justice Dept gets involved. The President’s language of “angry and concerned” should be enough for them to start moving on Rittenhouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are unmoored from reality and embarrassing yourself. The entire trial was live-streamed without commentary on you tube. Why not watch it and get acquainted with the facts before spouting off?

https://www.youtube.com/c/LawCrimeNetwork

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was black he would have been found guilty. No doubt in my mind - signed, a white person

Agreed--signed another white person

+1. Latina

Maybe? Signed another human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious - are there any actual lawyers on here that disagree with the verdict?

One attorney, Joseph R. Biden (Syracuse ‘68), of Washington, DC said he was “angry and concerned.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. No one is advocating violence. However, in the interest of justice, following up with ensuring none of the jury members or judge was on the take or being intimidated by the defense is a fair thing to ask. The perp unquestionably did violate the civil rights of the protesters, so the feds need to prosecute him. The prosecution furthermore was grossly negligent is discharging its duties and those sad examples of the legal profession need to be made an example of.

LOL. Pray tell, how exactly did the defendant violate their civil rights? You may want to familiarize yourself with the pertinent statutes. And these were not protesters. They were rioters engaging in the destruction of a community.

There will be no federal case. No civil rights were violated. Yes the prosecutors sucked. About par for the course though. They often suck. It's just that public defenders suck more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Justice Dept gets involved. The President’s language of “angry and concerned” should be enough for them to start moving on Rittenhouse.

there is no basis for them to get involved. What is the violation?