Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a clown world like this the 17 year old half Hispanic boy is a white supremacist for killing a 36 year old child rapist with a shaved head who was screaming n words earlier in the night on tape and just got arrested for beating his girlfriend.

You clowns really want to call Rosenbaum an ally? Really??!

PREACH!!!! Honestly, people here are sounding as ridiculous as that QShaman dude on Jan 6

Kyle Rittenhouse was raised in a home with an Alcoholic father- later a broken home= low self esteem, pent up rage and looking for someone to act out on

Its a well known fact that the most criminals in this country were raised in homes with substance abuse/ broken homes, single parents

His mom has no education

Yet, despite his troubling past he didn’t go out and rape 9 and 11 year old boys like Joseph Rosenbaum…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s over no double jeopardy

Not if they bring federal charges genius.
Civil lawsuits.
Not necessarily over.

There are no federal charges to be had here. And any civil lawsuits will go nowhere. Do you really think the guy with a lengthy criminal record who was shot only after rushing at Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand is going to win a lawsuit? That nonsense will get laughed out of court and rightfully so.

Plus 1

[Anonymous]

Every time I see Kyle Rittenhouse's face OR his mothers https://heavy.com/news/michael-mike-rittenhouse-kyle-father/

I am reminded of Joseph Goebbels and his fat face and his wife's double chin

I don't think anyone wants to share a work place with Kyle or fly on a plane he is on or be seated anywhere near him in a movie theater or public restaurant since he is shown he thinks the law doesnt apply to him ( driving without a license, carry a gun without a license, lying that he is an EMT when really he is a HS drop out wanna be )

Who knows who he will decide he is going to shoot next

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time I see Kyle Rittenhouse's face OR his mothers https://heavy.com/news/michael-mike-rittenhouse-kyle-father/

I am reminded of Joseph Goebbels and his fat face and his wife's double chin

I don't think anyone wants to share a work place with Kyle or fly on a plane he is on or be seated anywhere near him in a movie theater or public restaurant since he is shown he thinks the law doesnt apply to him ( driving without a license, carry a gun without a license, lying that he is an EMT when really he is a HS drop out wanna be )

Who knows who he will decide he is going to shoot next

Based on your comment, I'd rather share a workplace with him than with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s over no double jeopardy

Not if they bring federal charges genius.
Civil lawsuits.
Not necessarily over.

There are no federal charges to be had here. And any civil lawsuits will go nowhere. Do you really think the guy with a lengthy criminal record who was shot only after rushing at Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand is going to win a lawsuit? That nonsense will get laughed out of court and rightfully so.

Plus 1

I'd say that the future of Kyle Rittenhouse, 17 year old who grew up in a home where he watched his alcoholic/ drug addicted father beat his mom, where he and his mom and siblings lived in homeless shelters and by age 17 he had dropped out of HS and murdered 2 strangers is pretty much set

Not even a bleeding heart Dem would throw/ waste money on that one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s over no double jeopardy

Not if they bring federal charges genius.
Civil lawsuits.
Not necessarily over.

There are no federal charges to be had here. And any civil lawsuits will go nowhere. Do you really think the guy with a lengthy criminal record who was shot only after rushing at Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand is going to win a lawsuit? That nonsense will get laughed out of court and rightfully so.

Plus 1

I'd say that the future of Kyle Rittenhouse, 17 year old who grew up in a home where he watched his alcoholic/ drug addicted father beat his mom, where he and his mom and siblings lived in homeless shelters and by age 17 he had dropped out of HS and murdered 2 strangers is pretty much set

Not even a bleeding heart Dem would throw/ waste money on that one

You never know, things might improve for him. Apparently Madison Cawthorne and Matt Goetz have offered him internships...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You would would have to either be a horrible lawyer or blindly biased to be a lawyer and think the verdict was wrong. As a lawyer, I can tell you think was actually an insanely obvious outcome. The only thing that made the outcome questionable was all the politics surrounding it and not knowing if the jury would do the right thing

The problem is that this outcome means that anyone can go to some random town, wave an AR-15 around at people and provoke them, and then shoot and kill them when they come after you. And get off for it.
This is NOT a good outcome for America. It only escalates us toward even more violence and bloodshed, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

And what happens when the extreme left starts using this same tactic?

No, that’s not what this verdict means. You are either dense or playing stupid games. It means that the jury considered all the evidence of what happened in this particular set of events and determined that Rittenhouse was not guilty under applicable Wisconsin law. The outcome could be different with different facts or different law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s over no double jeopardy

Not if they bring federal charges genius.
Civil lawsuits.
Not necessarily over.

There are no federal charges to be had here. And any civil lawsuits will go nowhere. Do you really think the guy with a lengthy criminal record who was shot only after rushing at Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand is going to win a lawsuit? That nonsense will get laughed out of court and rightfully so.

Plus 1

I'd say that the future of Kyle Rittenhouse, 17 year old who grew up in a home where he watched his alcoholic/ drug addicted father beat his mom, where he and his mom and siblings lived in homeless shelters and by age 17 he had dropped out of HS and murdered 2 strangers is pretty much set

Not even a bleeding heart Dem would throw/ waste money on that one

Sounds like social services and public schools already failed him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time I see Kyle Rittenhouse's face OR his mothers https://heavy.com/news/michael-mike-rittenhouse-kyle-father/

I am reminded of Joseph Goebbels and his fat face and his wife's double chin

I don't think anyone wants to share a work place with Kyle or fly on a plane he is on or be seated anywhere near him in a movie theater or public restaurant since he is shown he thinks the law doesnt apply to him ( driving without a license, carry a gun without a license, lying that he is an EMT when really he is a HS drop out wanna be )

Who knows who he will decide he is going to shoot next

You are both vicious and insane. I can tell you for sure that I would not want to be anywhere near you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Uh, let’s see…. Murder? Crossing state lines with intent to commit murder? Violating the civil rights of protesters? Possession of an illegal gun?

Should I go on or is that enough to get you to S T F U ?

Wow, I’m embarrassed for you to speak so confidentially about things you are so wrong about. Your lack of knowledge about the facts is stark.

- didn’t cross state lines
- 0 evidence of intent to murder
- not an illegal gun and not illegal for him to have it
- don’t even know what the heck you are talking about re civil rights

FACT: Rittenhouse DID cross state lines
FACT: Rittenhouse was on video a few days prior saying he wished he had his AR while safely watching some protesters from afar with no immediate threat to him (intent to kill).

But of course this was a sham of a trial.

As an attorney, I would just love it if someone actually chimed in and explained the legal significance of the whole "crossing a state line" mantra that Rittenhouse's detractors continue to spout. FFS, what does that have anything to do with any element of any offense with which he was charged? This is America. People cross state lines all the time. I have been in DC, Maryland, and Virginia all within the last 24 hours.

It's a violation of federal law to travel to a state where it is illegal for you to have a gun. At first the news said he had the gun with him when he left home in IL. Then it was determined he picked up the gun in WI, so he wasn't charged. But many in the media continue to claim that he crossed state lines with a gun and that this shows intent to kill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Uh, let’s see…. Murder? Crossing state lines with intent to commit murder? Violating the civil rights of protesters? Possession of an illegal gun?

Should I go on or is that enough to get you to S T F U ?

Wow, I’m embarrassed for you to speak so confidentially about things you are so wrong about. Your lack of knowledge about the facts is stark.

- didn’t cross state lines
- 0 evidence of intent to murder
- not an illegal gun and not illegal for him to have it
- don’t even know what the heck you are talking about re civil rights

FACT: Rittenhouse DID cross state lines
FACT: Rittenhouse was on video a few days prior saying he wished he had his AR while safely watching some protesters from afar with no immediate threat to him (intent to kill).

But of course this was a sham of a trial.

As an attorney, I would just love it if someone actually chimed in and explained the legal significance of the whole "crossing a state line" mantra that Rittenhouse's detractors continue to spout. FFS, what does that have anything to do with any element of any offense with which he was charged? This is America. People cross state lines all the time. I have been in DC, Maryland, and Virginia all within the last 24 hours.

It's a violation of federal law to travel to a state where it is illegal for you to have a gun. At first the news said he had the gun with him when he left home in IL. Then it was determined he picked up the gun in WI, so he wasn't charged. But many in the media continue to claim that he crossed state lines with a gun and that this shows intent to kill.

Didn’t most of the Kenosha protesters come from out of state? This is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Uh, let’s see…. Murder? Crossing state lines with intent to commit murder? Violating the civil rights of protesters? Possession of an illegal gun?

Should I go on or is that enough to get you to S T F U ?

Wow, I’m embarrassed for you to speak so confidentially about things you are so wrong about. Your lack of knowledge about the facts is stark.

- didn’t cross state lines
- 0 evidence of intent to murder
- not an illegal gun and not illegal for him to have it
- don’t even know what the heck you are talking about re civil rights

FACT: Rittenhouse DID cross state lines
FACT: Rittenhouse was on video a few days prior saying he wished he had his AR while safely watching some protesters from afar with no immediate threat to him (intent to kill).

But of course this was a sham of a trial.

As an attorney, I would just love it if someone actually chimed in and explained the legal significance of the whole "crossing a state line" mantra that Rittenhouse's detractors continue to spout. FFS, what does that have anything to do with any element of any offense with which he was charged? This is America. People cross state lines all the time. I have been in DC, Maryland, and Virginia all within the last 24 hours.

It's a violation of federal law to travel to a state where it is illegal for you to have a gun. At first the news said he had the gun with him when he left home in IL. Then it was determined he picked up the gun in WI, so he wasn't charged. But many in the media continue to claim that he crossed state lines with a gun and that this shows intent to kill.

That sounds odd from a legal standpoint. Can you point to a particular statute that says that, or is this one of those "facts" that people reference in passing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s over no double jeopardy

Not if they bring federal charges genius.
Civil lawsuits.
Not necessarily over.

There are no federal charges to be had here. And any civil lawsuits will go nowhere. Do you really think the guy with a lengthy criminal record who was shot only after rushing at Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand is going to win a lawsuit? That nonsense will get laughed out of court and rightfully so.

Plus 1

I'd say that the future of Kyle Rittenhouse, 17 year old who grew up in a home where he watched his alcoholic/ drug addicted father beat his mom, where he and his mom and siblings lived in homeless shelters and by age 17 he had dropped out of HS and murdered 2 strangers is pretty much set

Not even a bleeding heart Dem would throw/ waste money on that one

Based on what qualifications - Rittenhouse dropped out of HS in 9th grade

Or is that your idea of equal access to jobs for those who work hard and are the most qualified vs lackies

You never know, things might improve for him. Apparently Madison Cawthorne and Matt Goetz have offered him internships...

[Anonymous]

If I were the jurors, I would never come forward to explain anything to anyone affiliated with a news agency. Nobody. I would not give them the time of day. They are all evil bast*rds.

[Anonymous]

That’ll help your dead economy in your working class town - discourage “ outsiders comin ‘ here “

No more tourism