Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

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: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.

I think that rioters burning a city in protest of the police rightfully shooting a violent convicted criminal who was resisting arrest and lunging for a weapon is the foundational problem. Seeing video of business owners on their roofs defending themselves from rioters because the police were unable to help paints a dystopian picture of how low we’ve sunk as a nation. Should 17 year olds be allowed to own guns…..definitely not. Should this kid have been wandering into a riot……definitely not. Did this kid confront anybody……definitely not. But take a step back and identify the real problem with what happened in Kenosha and how the media covered this case…….those are the issues that are corrosive to society not some idiot kid.

PP here again. What I hear you say is that this young boy carrying a rifle and heading into an area of unrest is acceptable to you under the circumstances and for the reasons that you listed.

Again, I have no interest in defending the riots or the violent individuals that were killed. But, I just want to point out that the riots/civil unrest were being handled by the appropriate legal authorities. People showing up with guns and taking matters into their own hands ( to defend a third party’s property) elevate a riot into warfare.

Whether you like it or not, one of the messages that comes out from this case is that it is now socially acceptable for armed citizens (children at that) to engage in policing and the carry out of justice if they are sympathetic enough. This will embolden others to follow in his steps. If you don’t recognize that, then you are too emotionally involved in the political side of this.

[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. "Premeditation" with respect to the element of a particular murder charge does not mean what you think it means. The screen grab is useless. Educate yourself.

[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.

FACT: Crossing state lines is NOT a crime.

Papers please!

[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.

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

Tried to disarm him? The guy who attacked him with a skateboard was another violent felon.

You aren't entitled to attack someone because you think they need to be "disarmed." Don't attack people, period, especially the ones with guns.

[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.

DP. Are you saying that it is the place of civilians to protect property that is not theirs? With a gun? In a fight to the death? Why do you value property more than human life? And why should rando civilians "protect" a stranger's property with a gun? Why isn't the property owner out there protecting their own property?

[Anonymous]

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.

1. There was no automatic weapon.
2. Crossing state lines is not a crime and something millions of people do daily.
3. You have no idea of the future. None.

An AR15 can fire 30 rounds of ammunition! If that’s not an automatic weapon then I don’t know WTF is!!!!!

[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.

0. What about the lady “gun nutters”?

1. Hate has no home here!

[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.

I think that rioters burning a city in protest of the police rightfully shooting a violent convicted criminal who was resisting arrest and lunging for a weapon is the foundational problem. Seeing video of business owners on their roofs defending themselves from rioters because the police were unable to help paints a dystopian picture of how low we’ve sunk as a nation. Should 17 year olds be allowed to own guns…..definitely not. Should this kid have been wandering into a riot……definitely not. Did this kid confront anybody……definitely not. But take a step back and identify the real problem with what happened in Kenosha and how the media covered this case…….those are the issues that are corrosive to society not some idiot kid.

PP here again. What I hear you say is that this young boy carrying a rifle and heading into an area of unrest is acceptable to you under the circumstances and for the reasons that you listed.

Again, I have no interest in defending the riots or the violent individuals that were killed. But, I just want to point out that the riots/civil unrest were being handled by the appropriate legal authorities. People showing up with guns and taking matters into their own hands ( to defend a third party’s property) elevate a riot into warfare.

Whether you like it or not, one of the messages that comes out from this case is that it is now socially acceptable for armed citizens (children at that) to engage in policing and the carry out of justice if they are sympathetic enough. This will embolden others to follow in his steps. If you don’t recognize that, then you are too emotionally involved in the political side of this.

They were not in fact being "handled," the police were down the street letting the rioters burn and destroy property.

I don't support vigilantism, but when the police fail to employ whatever force is necessary to stop ongoing mob violence that is what is going to happen.

[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.

I think that rioters burning a city in protest of the police rightfully shooting a violent convicted criminal who was resisting arrest and lunging for a weapon is the foundational problem. Seeing video of business owners on their roofs defending themselves from rioters because the police were unable to help paints a dystopian picture of how low we’ve sunk as a nation. Should 17 year olds be allowed to own guns…..definitely not. Should this kid have been wandering into a riot……definitely not. Did this kid confront anybody……definitely not. But take a step back and identify the real problem with what happened in Kenosha and how the media covered this case…….those are the issues that are corrosive to society not some idiot kid.

PP here again. What I hear you say is that this young boy carrying a rifle and heading into an area of unrest is acceptable to you under the circumstances and for the reasons that you listed.

Again, I have no interest in defending the riots or the violent individuals that were killed. But, I just want to point out that the riots/civil unrest were being handled by the appropriate legal authorities. People showing up with guns and taking matters into their own hands ( to defend a third party’s property) elevate a riot into warfare.

Whether you like it or not, one of the messages that comes out from this case is that it is now socially acceptable for armed citizens (children at that) to engage in policing and the carry out of justice if they are sympathetic enough. This will embolden others to follow in his steps. If you don’t recognize that, then you are too emotionally involved in the political side of this.

The riots were most certainly NOT being handled by the authorities. One truly disappointing aspect of those riots nationwide was the extent to which elected officials and law enforcement departments stood back and allowed communities to be absolutely terrorized by hordes of jackasses living out some "Purge" fantasy. If the authorities responded firmly and appropriately, there would have been far less need for civilians to arm themselves. There is a reason gun sales skyrocketed in the wake of these riots.

[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.

I think that rioters burning a city in protest of the police rightfully shooting a violent convicted criminal who was resisting arrest and lunging for a weapon is the foundational problem. Seeing video of business owners on their roofs defending themselves from rioters because the police were unable to help paints a dystopian picture of how low we’ve sunk as a nation. Should 17 year olds be allowed to own guns…..definitely not. Should this kid have been wandering into a riot……definitely not. Did this kid confront anybody……definitely not. But take a step back and identify the real problem with what happened in Kenosha and how the media covered this case…….those are the issues that are corrosive to society not some idiot kid.

PP here again. What I hear you say is that this young boy carrying a rifle and heading into an area of unrest is acceptable to you under the circumstances and for the reasons that you listed.

Again, I have no interest in defending the riots or the violent individuals that were killed. But, I just want to point out that the riots/civil unrest were being handled by the appropriate legal authorities. People showing up with guns and taking matters into their own hands ( to defend a third party’s property) elevate a riot into warfare.

Whether you like it or not, one of the messages that comes out from this case is that it is now socially acceptable for armed citizens (children at that) to engage in policing and the carry out of justice if they are sympathetic enough. This will embolden others to follow in his steps. If you don’t recognize that, then you are too emotionally involved in the political side of this.

Ok. Not PP. Yes we can all agree the kid is a moron. He should not have been there. He should have had better judgment, his parents should have stopped him, or his friends should have. Full stop. Now we move to the question of legality. Nothing he did by being there was illegal. Yes he was violating the curfew and so was everyone else. He was then attacked. He gets to defend himself. Even is he caused it by being there. People misunderstand provocation. Provocation relates to the exact incident that resulted in death. Not all the circumstances that caused him to be there. For the law -- the only thing that matters is the few moments around the incident. You can argue the kid should not have been there and you would be right. But that is unrelated to the criminal or frankly any later civil case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the

“Internationalist Group” written on the protesters signs?

It is a progressive organization that seeks to raise awareness

[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.

I think that rioters burning a city in protest of the police rightfully shooting a violent convicted criminal who was resisting arrest and lunging for a weapon is the foundational problem. Seeing video of business owners on their roofs defending themselves from rioters because the police were unable to help paints a dystopian picture of how low we’ve sunk as a nation. Should 17 year olds be allowed to own guns…..definitely not. Should this kid have been wandering into a riot……definitely not. Did this kid confront anybody……definitely not. But take a step back and identify the real problem with what happened in Kenosha and how the media covered this case…….those are the issues that are corrosive to society not some idiot kid.

PP here again. What I hear you say is that this young boy carrying a rifle and heading into an area of unrest is acceptable to you under the circumstances and for the reasons that you listed.

Again, I have no interest in defending the riots or the violent individuals that were killed. But, I just want to point out that the riots/civil unrest were being handled by the appropriate legal authorities. People showing up with guns and taking matters into their own hands ( to defend a third party’s property) elevate a riot into warfare.

Whether you like it or not, one of the messages that comes out from this case is that it is now socially acceptable for armed citizens (children at that) to engage in policing and the carry out of justice if they are sympathetic enough. This will embolden others to follow in his steps. If you don’t recognize that, then you are too emotionally involved in the political side of this.

NP.

1) The riots were NOT actually being handled by the appropriate legal authorities. That's why things go so out of control to begin with. Really, the person to blame here is the Governor of Wisconsin for not bringing enough National Guard to deal with an obviously combustible situation.

2) The jury made the right decision according to the facts and the law. What do you want them to do, purposefully reach a guilty verdict even though they knew that innocent was the correct one in order to deliver an appropriate sociological message? That's not justice.

3) Maybe the message that comes out of this case is that if you try to burn down your city, you might get shot. Which seems fine to me, even though I would have never been out there, or let my family out there, that night on one side or the other to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

0. What about the lady “gun nutters”?

1. Hate has no home here!

Ah the liberal left. It’s ok to emasculate men but how dare you misgender a trans person or insinuate that women should behave according to their stereotypes.

[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.

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.

DP. Are you saying that it is the place of civilians to protect property that is not theirs? With a gun? In a fight to the death? Why do you value property more than human life? And why should rando civilians "protect" a stranger's property with a gun? Why isn't the property owner out there protecting their own property?

If necessary, absolutely. If someone is preparing to burn my neighbor's house down, what do you think I am going to say? Oh, well they're not home and they probably have insurance. I guess I'll just go back to watching Netflix. Give me a break. I will absolutely use the force necessary to stop an arson in progress. I would certainly hope deadly force would not be necessary, but that would be entirely up to the arsonist.