Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just break it down a little further. A convicted child rapist chased a 17 year old minor into a parking lot and cornered him. I'd be scared too.

KR didn’t know he was convicted for that. Your fantasy world is incredible.

+1 from a legal standpoint, the victim's criminal past has zero to do with this case. KR didn't shoot him because of the guy's past. These two were strangers to each other.

The court ruled that we are not allow to refer to the deceased as victims in this case. So from a legal standpoint we are not allowed to refer to the criminal as the victim!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are 17 yo allowed to carry guns?! This is the root of the problem!

agree, and not just a little handgun, but a semiautomatic. This kid clearly had GI Joe fantasies and played too many video games.

And let’s not forget the jury never heard that Rittenhouse was on record on social media 2 weeks before Kenosha saying ‘“ I wish I had a gun so I could go down there and shoot these looters “

2 weeks later , he did just that - because that was his intent when he strapped a semi automatic to his body with 30 rounds in it and entered a crowd covered with props that he was a “ medic “ and telling journalists that he was an EMT

Of course, the judge - who is voted to keep his job on the bench by the voters of this blue collar town - didn’t allow the Prosecutor to submit that pre/ stated motive to the Jury

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are 17 yo allowed to carry guns?! This is the root of the problem!

agree, and not just a little handgun, but a semiautomatic. This kid clearly had GI Joe fantasies and played too many video games.

And let’s not forget the jury never heard that Rittenhouse was on record on social media 2 weeks before Kenosha saying ‘“ I wish I had a gun so I could go down there and shoot these looters “

2 weeks later , he did just that - because that was his intent when he strapped a semi automatic to his body with 30 rounds in it and entered a crowd covered with props that he was a “ medic “ and telling journalists that he was an EMT

Of course, the judge - who is voted to keep his job on the bench by the voters of this blue collar town - didn’t allow the Prosecutor to submit that pre/ stated motive to the Jury

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are 17 yo allowed to carry guns?! This is the root of the problem!

agree, and not just a little handgun, but a semiautomatic. This kid clearly had GI Joe fantasies and played too many video games.

Fortunately for him he was carrying a rifle and not a handgun because that is legal in Wisconsin at the age of 17.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also be concerned that it is totally acceptable for a 17 year old to illegally possess an automatic weapon, and cross state lines during a riot literally seeking trouble and not only suffer no repercussion for killing two people, but being celebrated and rewarded for his actions.

No remorse whatsoever, no self-awareness. He is going to kill again, bank on it.

Even when presented with facts, you choose to ignore them and paint your own narrative.

NP. I don’t want to get into the merits of this verdict, I think this case was rightfully won on the technicalities of the law and the performance of the defense and prosecution.

I am curious whether it’s acceptable to you that a 17 year old can legally carry an army style weapon, travel to an area of unrest and confront other violent individuals? To me that’s a breakdown of the social fabric, like Clockwork Orange come to life.

DP. I don't think it is okay. But, it was legal. However, it is clear that Rittenhouse was attacked. It was self-defense. Should he have been there? No. Should the pthers have been there? No. Should they have attacked Rittenhouse? I think the answer is pretty clear.

The big mistake (I posted this earlier) was Jacob Blake pulling a knife and the media cover up of that fact.

I don't think Kyle should have been there. But, it seems odd to me that people have no concerns about the people he shot doing exactly the same thing (traveling to Kenosha with guns during a riot/protest). I don't think it can be okay for them and not okay for Kyle.

[Anonymous]

I would expect that CNN and MSNBC will have to pay Rittenhouse millions.

How much did the kid get in the Right to Life March? They never called him a murderer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are 17 yo allowed to carry guns?! This is the root of the problem!

agree, and not just a little handgun, but a semiautomatic. This kid clearly had GI Joe fantasies and played too many video games.

And let’s not forget the jury never heard that Rittenhouse was on record on social media 2 weeks before Kenosha saying ‘“ I wish I had a gun so I could go down there and shoot these looters “

2 weeks later , he did just that - because that was his intent when he strapped a semi automatic to his body with 30 rounds in it and entered a crowd covered with props that he was a “ medic “ and telling journalists that he was an EMT

Of course, the judge - who is voted to keep his job on the bench by the voters of this blue collar town - didn’t allow the Prosecutor to submit that pre/ stated motive to the Jury

That's the case the prosecution ran with. But there are several other facts about the case that make it appear that was a one-off comment. He didn't start shooting until people threatened to kill him verbally, chasing him physically and then firing a weapon.

[Anonymous]

More NYC

[Anonymous]

What is the

“Internationalist Group” written on the protesters signs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are 17 yo allowed to carry guns?! This is the root of the problem!

agree, and not just a little handgun, but a semiautomatic. This kid clearly had GI Joe fantasies and played too many video games.

The root of Kyle Rittenhouse’s rage is not just his GI Joe fantasies that were no doubt stokes by Trump saying on TV , “ when the looting starts the shooting starts “

But his rage , his PTSD like behavior firing at anyone who tried to disarm him that night - to stop him from killing further - like a school shooter

Is the fact that he grew up in a home where he saw his Dad regularly beat his mom , that both his parents have a history of substance abuse , that his life in his formative years had no stability- he was homeless while his mother was homeless and he dropped out of HS

His only focus : guns

Kyle Rittenhouse is headed into the criminal justice system - maybe not yesterday , but just like OJ - inevitably

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also be concerned that it is totally acceptable for a 17 year old to illegally possess an automatic weapon, and cross state lines during a riot literally seeking trouble and not only suffer no repercussion for killing two people, but being celebrated and rewarded for his actions.

No remorse whatsoever, no self-awareness. He is going to kill again, bank on it.

Even when presented with facts, you choose to ignore them and paint your own narrative.

NP. I don’t want to get into the merits of this verdict, I think this case was rightfully won on the technicalities of the law and the performance of the defense and prosecution.

I am curious whether it’s acceptable to you that a 17 year old can legally carry an army style weapon, travel to an area of unrest and confront other violent individuals? To me that’s a breakdown of the social fabric, like Clockwork Orange come to life.

DP. I don't think it is okay. But, it was legal. However, it is clear that Rittenhouse was attacked. It was self-defense. Should he have been there? No. Should the pthers have been there? No. Should they have attacked Rittenhouse? I think the answer is pretty clear.

The big mistake (I posted this earlier) was Jacob Blake pulling a knife and the media cover up of that fact.

I don't think Kyle should have been there. But, it seems odd to me that people have no concerns about the people he shot doing exactly the same thing (traveling to Kenosha with guns during a riot/protest). I don't think it can be okay for them and not okay for Kyle.

He was there at the request of a business along with a bunch of others with ARs because the businesses realized the police were not going to step in to protect their businesses. (I guess this weekend we should just let the businesses burn when police and fire do not respond?)

[Anonymous]

People on this forum keep posting “defund the police =/= abolish”.

But apparently that is not true. Apparently it is an intentional deception:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also be concerned that it is totally acceptable for a 17 year old to illegally possess an automatic weapon, and cross state lines during a riot literally seeking trouble and not only suffer no repercussion for killing two people, but being celebrated and rewarded for his actions.

No remorse whatsoever, no self-awareness. He is going to kill again, bank on it.

Even when presented with facts, you choose to ignore them and paint your own narrative.

NP. I don’t want to get into the merits of this verdict, I think this case was rightfully won on the technicalities of the law and the performance of the defense and prosecution.

I am curious whether it’s acceptable to you that a 17 year old can legally carry an army style weapon, travel to an area of unrest and confront other violent individuals? To me that’s a breakdown of the social fabric, like Clockwork Orange come to life.

DP. I don't think it is okay. But, it was legal. However, it is clear that Rittenhouse was attacked. It was self-defense. Should he have been there? No. Should the pthers have been there? No. Should they have attacked Rittenhouse? I think the answer is pretty clear.

The big mistake (I posted this earlier) was Jacob Blake pulling a knife and the media cover up of that fact.

I don't think Kyle should have been there. But, it seems odd to me that people have no concerns about the people he shot doing exactly the same thing (traveling to Kenosha with guns during a riot/protest). I don't think it can be okay for them and not okay for Kyle.

He was there at the request of a business along with a bunch of others with ARs because the businesses realized the police were not going to step in to protect their businesses. (I guess this weekend we should just let the businesses burn when police and fire do not respond?)

This is all false according to trial testimony. The cars were already burned and the dealership didn’t ask Kyle to protect anything. There were calls going out on right wing social media, though. From troublemakers, not from local businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also be concerned that it is totally acceptable for a 17 year old to illegally possess an automatic weapon, and cross state lines during a riot literally seeking trouble and not only suffer no repercussion for killing two people, but being celebrated and rewarded for his actions.

No remorse whatsoever, no self-awareness. He is going to kill again, bank on it.

Even when presented with facts, you choose to ignore them and paint your own narrative.

NP. I don’t want to get into the merits of this verdict, I think this case was rightfully won on the technicalities of the law and the performance of the defense and prosecution.

I am curious whether it’s acceptable to you that a 17 year old can legally carry an army style weapon, travel to an area of unrest and confront other violent individuals? To me that’s a breakdown of the social fabric, like Clockwork Orange come to life.

DP. I don't think it is okay. But, it was legal. However, it is clear that Rittenhouse was attacked. It was self-defense. Should he have been there? No. Should the pthers have been there? No. Should they have attacked Rittenhouse? I think the answer is pretty clear.

The big mistake (I posted this earlier) was Jacob Blake pulling a knife and the media cover up of that fact.

I don't think Kyle should have been there. But, it seems odd to me that people have no concerns about the people he shot doing exactly the same thing (traveling to Kenosha with guns during a riot/protest). I don't think it can be okay for them and not okay for Kyle.

He was there at the request of a business along with a bunch of others with ARs because the businesses realized the police were not going to step in to protect their businesses. (I guess this weekend we should just let the businesses burn when police and fire do not respond?)

This is all false according to trial testimony. The cars were already burned and the dealership didn’t ask Kyle to protect anything. There were calls going out on right wing social media, though. From troublemakers, not from local businesses.

So the businesses were fine with an encouraged the arsonists? Sounds about right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also be concerned that it is totally acceptable for a 17 year old to illegally possess an automatic weapon, and cross state lines during a riot literally seeking trouble and not only suffer no repercussion for killing two people, but being celebrated and rewarded for his actions.

No remorse whatsoever, no self-awareness. He is going to kill again, bank on it.

Even when presented with facts, you choose to ignore them and paint your own narrative.

NP. I don’t want to get into the merits of this verdict, I think this case was rightfully won on the technicalities of the law and the performance of the defense and prosecution.

I am curious whether it’s acceptable to you that a 17 year old can legally carry an army style weapon, travel to an area of unrest and confront other violent individuals? To me that’s a breakdown of the social fabric, like Clockwork Orange come to life.

DP. I don't think it is okay. But, it was legal. However, it is clear that Rittenhouse was attacked. It was self-defense. Should he have been there? No. Should the pthers have been there? No. Should they have attacked Rittenhouse? I think the answer is pretty clear.

The big mistake (I posted this earlier) was Jacob Blake pulling a knife and the media cover up of that fact.

I don't think Kyle should have been there. But, it seems odd to me that people have no concerns about the people he shot doing exactly the same thing (traveling to Kenosha with guns during a riot/protest). I don't think it can be okay for them and not okay for Kyle.

He was there at the request of a business along with a bunch of others with ARs because the businesses realized the police were not going to step in to protect their businesses. (I guess this weekend we should just let the businesses burn when police and fire do not respond?)

This is all false according to trial testimony. The cars were already burned and the dealership didn’t ask Kyle to protect anything. There were calls going out on right wing social media, though. From troublemakers, not from local businesses.

So the businesses were fine with and encouraged the arsonists? Sounds about right?