Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we abolish police, we'll get even more of this kind of thing.

Defunding police =/= abolishing police.

Exactly. And despite the lie that was said at the RNC, Biden has $300 million earmarked for the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the logic of this kid's defenders, Omar Mateen's first victim in Pulse was a real murder, sure, but his subsequent shots might all be "self defense" as people rushed him after he started shooting

It’s not “defending the kid” to be honest about what the video shows. The kid was already being attacked before he shot the first guy.

I can be pro gun control, anti Trump, think that the cops are inept AND also be honest about what I see. I actually want to understand how this violence occurred so that I have a greater understanding in life. It worries me how tribal everyone has become and that everyone seems willing to ignore inconvenient facts kist to support their chosen “team”. Trump has somehow gotten the democrats to be willing to stoop to such a low level that it really bothers me.

maybe he was being chased, but we don’t know why. he could have been threatening people with his gun.

but let’s be clear - whatever happened is because he is an armed racist who crossed state lines in an organized attempt to intimidate people protesting the shooting of an unarmed black man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

Attacking a person does however so this may not turn out the way you think it will. None of the videos show the shooter advancing towards any of those he shot so that will be a major weakness against potential prosecution.

LOL yes he was in his home...oh wait he traveled from another state to attack and kill black people. He did what he wanted to do and you think it’s self defense? Premeditated murder. He and everyone associated with him are terrorists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

Attacking a person does however so this may not turn out the way you think it will. None of the videos show the shooter advancing towards any of those he shot so that will be a major weakness against potential prosecution.

LOL yes he was in his home...oh wait he traveled from another state to attack and kill black people. He did what he wanted to do and you think it’s self defense? Premeditated murder. He and everyone associated with him are terrorists.

He’s a gang member. This all happened because he wanted to play big boy with a gun. Now he gets to take what’s coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

Attacking a person does however so this may not turn out the way you think it will. None of the videos show the shooter advancing towards any of those he shot so that will be a major weakness against potential prosecution.

LOL yes he was in his home...oh wait he traveled from another state to attack and kill black people. He did what he wanted to do and you think it’s self defense? Premeditated murder. He and everyone associated with him are terrorists.

He didn’t attack or kill any black people. You really need to stick to the facts because this bending of the truth is not helping your credibility. It is possible that he was brainwashed to legitimately believe that the gun was for his own protection and not to commit murder. People who are attacking usually are not trying to run away before shooting. I agree that the kid is damaged but I cannot agree with your hyperbole unless I see facts that support it.

[Anonymous]

How does that little Kenosha shit have a gun? He is 17. The age limit in Illinois is 18. His mother should be charged too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

Attacking a person does however so this may not turn out the way you think it will. None of the videos show the shooter advancing towards any of those he shot so that will be a major weakness against potential prosecution.

LOL yes he was in his home...oh wait he traveled from another state to attack and kill black people. He did what he wanted to do and you think it’s self defense? Premeditated murder. He and everyone associated with him are terrorists.

He didn’t attack or kill any black people. You really need to stick to the facts because this bending of the truth is not helping your credibility. It is possible that he was brainwashed to legitimately believe that the gun was for his own protection and not to commit murder. People who are attacking usually are not trying to run away before shooting. I agree that the kid is damaged but I cannot agree with your hyperbole unless I see facts that support it.

Wow talk about jumping through hoops. Just stop with your trump logic. This thug is a killer. He had no right to be in that area, he does not live in the state. Why was he there...to kill black people. Just another terrorist who gets handled with kid gloves by the police. My god why would anyone have faith in the police? They actively letting these thugs and agitators come to their state and kill the people they are sworn to protect. This is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does that little Kenosha shit have a gun? He is 17. The age limit in Illinois is 18. His mother should be charged too.

Israel would have bulldozer the house of all the relatives by now. They know how to deal with terrorists like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does that little Kenosha shit have a gun? He is 17. The age limit in Illinois is 18. His mother should be charged too.

Israel would have bulldozer the house of all the relatives by now. They know how to deal with terrorists like this.

Works for me. These white-wing terrorists deserve nothing better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

Attacking a person does however so this may not turn out the way you think it will. None of the videos show the shooter advancing towards any of those he shot so that will be a major weakness against potential prosecution.

LOL yes he was in his home...oh wait he traveled from another state to attack and kill black people. He did what he wanted to do and you think it’s self defense? Premeditated murder. He and everyone associated with him are terrorists.

He didn’t attack or kill any black people. You really need to stick to the facts because this bending of the truth is not helping your credibility. It is possible that he was brainwashed to legitimately believe that the gun was for his own protection and not to commit murder. People who are attacking usually are not trying to run away before shooting. I agree that the kid is damaged but I cannot agree with your hyperbole unless I see facts that support it.

Wow talk about jumping through hoops. Just stop with your trump logic. This thug is a killer. He had no right to be in that area, he does not live in the state. Why was he there...to kill black people. Just another terrorist who gets handled with kid gloves by the police. My god why would anyone have faith in the police? They actively letting these thugs and agitators come to their state and kill the people they are sworn to protect. This is disgusting.

The police are totally inept and are responsible for things getting out of hand. Calling for facts is hardly “Trump logic”. Nobody had any right to be there sonce it was after a curfew.

[Anonymous]

That kid will get off on self defense. Just like Jacob Blake who appears to have been visiting the woman he was charged with assaulting in July against a court order does not matter; it does not matter that this kid was from out of state with an open weapon.

It was clearly self defense. He was being attacked and based on what happened to other bystanders in the riots recently he should have feared for his life.

[Anonymous]

Here is a thread that pieces together a bunch of live streams to give an account of the Rittenhouse shootings:

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809

(The following is extracted from that thread):

To better understand what happened next, we synchronized 6 livestreams, which revealed that there were two separate shooting incidents, about one and a half minutes apart, involving multiple gunmen.
...
At 23:19, Rittenhouse is seen in this YouTube livestream. He's being chased into a parking lot. While he is being pursued, an unknown gunman fires the first shot into the air.
...
Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him. He then fires four times with his assault rifle, and appears to shoot the man in the head.
...
The muzzle flash of the first shot by the unknown gunman and the smoke rising from the handgun can be seen in this video capturing the first shooting from a different angle.
...
It's unclear why Rittenhouse was being chased or why he was in the area of this car dealership about four blocks away from the one he claimed to be protecting. We do know vehicles in this lot were damaged minutes before the first shooting.
...
The initial shot and Rittenhouse's four subsequent discharges of his AR-15-style weapon are followed by three more shots in the parking lot we don't know who fired them. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene.
...
While fleeing from the scene, Rittenhouse is again chased by several people. He trips and falls to the ground and fires four shots as three people rush him. One person appears to be hit in the chest, while another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm.
...
At the same time, we hear at least 8 gunshots from farther away. Mr. Rittenhouse gets up and begins walking north from the scene, and 8 more gunshots are heard from closer range. Its unclear who fired the other gunshots.
...
Police vehicles just one block away remain stationary during the gunfire. Rittenhouse walks with his hands up toward the police, as bystanders call out that he was involved in the shooting. The police drive by him to the scene of the shootings, without stopping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That kid will get off on self defense. Just like Jacob Blake who appears to have been visiting the woman he was charged with assaulting in July against a court order does not matter; it does not matter that this kid was from out of state with an open weapon.

It was clearly self defense. He was being attacked and based on what happened to other bystanders in the riots recently he should have feared for his life.

Do you mean the guys that he killed? That's a circular argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does that little Kenosha shit have a gun? He is 17. The age limit in Illinois is 18. His mother should be charged too.

I agree. Where were his parents?

[Anonymous]

The right wing reaction to this murderous kid has finally broken me.

You win, right wing trolls.