Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

How many others like Kyle were there? Dozens?

[Anonymous]

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

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

What a clown show. Something to do before going back to their dorm rooms for Xbox, pizza, and beer. What a compelling movement.

[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?)

It’s not the place of civilians to protect things (i.e. “property”) via the employing of deadly violence. Those who own the things have insurance. Furthermore, society has decided that is the role of police. Are you arguing for defunding the police in favor of armed vigilantes?
If the kid had just minded his own business he would not be a national pariah.

[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?)

It’s not the place of civilians to protect things (i.e. “property”) via the employing of deadly violence. Those who own the things have insurance. Furthermore, society has decided that is the role of police. Are you arguing for defunding the police in favor of armed vigilantes?
If the kid had just minded his own business he would not be a national pariah.

Interesting comment. And, I agree that it is the role of the police to protect people and property.
But, this is the kind of thing that happens when the leaders of a city, or state, tell the police to stand down and refuse to accept help - like the National Guard - to protect the community. When this occurs, people take it upon themselves to protect their businesses and their lives. It is totally understandable. And, totally predictable.

[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?)

It’s not the place of civilians to protect things (i.e. “property”) via the employing of deadly violence. Those who own the things have insurance. Furthermore, society has decided that is the role of police. Are you arguing for defunding the police in favor of armed vigilantes?
If the kid had just minded his own business he would not be a national pariah.

Unclear what you mean by employ. Every reasonable citizen of this country will soon own firearms to protect their homes. If an angry mob tries to set fire to my home or business while I’m in it, they might reasonably expect that I am going to employ my firearm. (Don’t try this in DC, you will be arrested.)

KR is not a pariah. The media and Biden are pariahs.

[Anonymous]

Stop calling him a kid - he is an adult now

Kyle Rittenhouse: high school drop out, formerly homeless with his mother as a child , raised in a home permeated with domestic violence and substance abuse , age at date of first murder : 17 ( a multiple murder in which he fired a semi automatic weapon )

Coming to a restaurant, movie theater, classroom or office of employment in which you are close to him in a confined space while he carries a weapon and could snap again at any moment

He will inevitably kill again, become a substance abuser like both his parents , beat his gf , assault his boss , drive drunk ( he has already broken the law by driving without a drivers license)

He walked yesterday, but his internal life is one that pretty much guarantees he will re- offend

In the meantime, we all saw what happened to Johnny Cochran

[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.

Uh, most handguns are semiautomatic. If you don’t know anything about firearms, you may want to refrain from opining on such matters.

[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?)

It’s not the place of civilians to protect things (i.e. “property”) via the employing of deadly violence. Those who own the things have insurance. Furthermore, society has decided that is the role of police. Are you arguing for defunding the police in favor of armed vigilantes?
If the kid had just minded his own business he would not be a national pariah.

It is absolutely the place of civilians to protect life and property. What planet do you live on? Do you think citizens forfeit their right to protect their property or others’ just because police departments exist.

[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.

Uh, most handguns are semiautomatic. If you don’t know anything about firearms, you may want to refrain from opining on such matters.

I’ll proudly admit knowing absolutely nothing about guns! The only thing I need to know about them is that they should all be outlawed.

Oh, and gun nutters all have tiny dicks. So I guess that’s two things I know about guns. But nothing beyond that.

[Anonymous]

The fact is, even if someone is walking around with an AR, you can't attack them with your own weapon or a skateboard or grab the barrel of their gun. Once you do that, you have every right to be shot as the person you attack defends their self. The jury has spoken.

Now, should KR and the others been marching around with guns? No, of course not ... but two wrongs clearly don't make a right here.

[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?)

It’s not the place of civilians to protect things (i.e. “property”) via the employing of deadly violence. Those who own the things have insurance. Furthermore, society has decided that is the role of police. Are you arguing for defunding the police in favor of armed vigilantes?
If the kid had just minded his own business he would not be a national pariah.

Unclear what you mean by employ. Every reasonable citizen of this country will soon own firearms to protect their homes. If an angry mob tries to set fire to my home or business while I’m in it, they might reasonably expect that I am going to employ my firearm. (Don’t try this in DC, you will be arrested.)

KR is not a pariah. The media and Biden are pariahs.

Screen-shotted this post because it is prima facia evidence of your premeditation to commit murder if someone ever protests at your home.

If you ever do murder someone I’m giving this screen grab to the police.

[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?)

It’s not the place of civilians to protect things (i.e. “property”) via the employing of deadly violence. Those who own the things have insurance. Furthermore, society has decided that is the role of police. Are you arguing for defunding the police in favor of armed vigilantes?
If the kid had just minded his own business he would not be a national pariah.

It is absolutely the place of civilians to protect life and property. What planet do you live on? Do you think citizens forfeit their right to protect their property or others’ just because police departments exist.

Except he wasn't protecting property anymore, he was roaming the streets brandishing a weapon. If he had stayed on the property he was protecting, none of this would have happened.

[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?)

It’s not the place of civilians to protect things (i.e. “property”) via the employing of deadly violence. Those who own the things have insurance. Furthermore, society has decided that is the role of police. Are you arguing for defunding the police in favor of armed vigilantes?
If the kid had just minded his own business he would not be a national pariah.

Interesting comment. And, I agree that it is the role of the police to protect people and property.
But, this is the kind of thing that happens when the leaders of a city, or state, tell the police to stand down and refuse to accept help - like the National Guard - to protect the community. When this occurs, people take it upon themselves to protect their businesses and their lives. It is totally understandable. And, totally predictable.

WRONG. The police do NOT have a duty to protect you!

Where are you getting these ideas??

This is settled law.

Read Warren v. District of Columbia, among many others.

The case law consistently holds that police officers, at all levels of the government, have no duty to protect the citizens of this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?)

It’s not the place of civilians to protect things (i.e. “property”) via the employing of deadly violence. Those who own the things have insurance. Furthermore, society has decided that is the role of police. Are you arguing for defunding the police in favor of armed vigilantes?
If the kid had just minded his own business he would not be a national pariah.

Unclear what you mean by employ. Every reasonable citizen of this country will soon own firearms to protect their homes. If an angry mob tries to set fire to my home or business while I’m in it, they might reasonably expect that I am going to employ my firearm. (Don’t try this in DC, you will be arrested.)

KR is not a pariah. The media and Biden are pariahs.

Screen-shotted this post because it is prima facia evidence of your premeditation to commit murder if someone ever protests at your home.

If you ever do murder someone I’m giving this screen grab to the police.

LOL. You can always count on the DCUM posters to provide comic relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, most handguns are semiautomatic. If you don’t know anything about firearms, you may want to refrain from opining on such matters.

I’ll proudly admit knowing absolutely nothing about guns! The only thing I need to know about them is that they should all be outlawed.

Oh, and gun nutters all have tiny dicks. So I guess that’s two things I know about guns. But nothing beyond that.

+1 million

The bigger the gun, the smaller the d**k.