Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is anyone allowed to be walking around with a gun (regardless of open carry laws) if the sheriff has imposed a curfew?

Because he was in the same militia as the police.

(Yes, the police are also militia in their off hours. And look what it got them.)

[Anonymous]

Liberty sucks if you are a bad guy.

[Anonymous]

Here is the sequence of events for the first shooting:

At 23:19, Rittenhouse is 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.

Source with supporting video: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You win, right wing trolls.

I’m not right wing and I’m not a troll but the kid may be able to argue self defense.

Doubtful. He was violating a list of laws just being in Kenosha with that gun on Monday night. He also exercised disproportionate force against two men who had no lethal weapons.

He will have a very hard hill to climb to make a successful self defense argument. Frankly, if his case is heard in any major city in WI the jury will find him guilty. He may have a different verdict with a rural jury, but that won’t happen.

If you watch the video of the second shooting, he is kicked in the upper torso or possibly head by one person, and a second strikes him with a skateboard. Then he picks up his rifle and fires.

In the second incident:
1. It’s still a disproportionate use of force. Skateboard does not equal a gun in terms of lethality.
2. If the first shooting was justified, why did he flee? WI has not stand your ground law/Castle doctrine. Self defense argument would require him to wait on the scene. That’s another violation of laws by Rittenhouse.
3. Other people feared for their lives because the shooter just killed someone only 60 seconds before. He was assessed as a threat, dressed like a mass shooter, he illegally fled the scene of first shooting, etc. Totality of evidence indicates that they were justified to try to relieve him of his brandished weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At least one of those he killed was a registered sex offender against children. Forgive me for not crying over his corpse. The kid had signed up for clean up crew as well, and there are videos/photos of him cleaning graffiti off buildings/etc.

Nothing prior to this indicates that he was there to shoot people up, etc. It seems he was there to do good. I'm never surprised when people with prior criminal records start to burn and loot a city, and then escalate to violence against others.

The lengths people will go to, to excuse white kids, and demonize black people. They point out that the man he killed was a child molester....like Rittenhouse knew that....or that it mattered. But Rittenhouse was "there to do good"? With a gun? At two in the morning? My 17-year-old volunteers to do good, but never at 2 am, and never with a long gun in a city 20 miles away with active riots that is under curfew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is anyone allowed to be walking around with a gun (regardless of open carry laws) if the sheriff has imposed a curfew?

Because the police let him. They even said they appreciated him being there. Those cops should be disciplined for that.

+1

Do you know what he is? He’s basically a night rider, there to let the black people know who’s in charge and remind them, in case they forget, that black people don’t have power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At least one of those he killed was a registered sex offender against children. Forgive me for not crying over his corpse. The kid had signed up for clean up crew as well, and there are videos/photos of him cleaning graffiti off buildings/etc.

Nothing prior to this indicates that he was there to shoot people up, etc. It seems he was there to do good. I'm never surprised when people with prior criminal records start to burn and loot a city, and then escalate to violence against others.

The lengths people will go to, to excuse white kids, and demonize black people. They point out that the man he killed was a child molester....like Rittenhouse knew that....or that it mattered. But Rittenhouse was "there to do good"? With a gun? At two in the morning? My 17-year-old volunteers to do good, but never at 2 am, and never with a long gun in a city 20 miles away with active riots that is under curfew.

x a million!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watch what you are using as an argument. If it’s considered self defense to chase and attack the shooter with force then tue shooter could also claim that he would be allowed to chase and attack others. It just doesn't make sense. If you are fearing for your life then you should seek safe escape, not chase the person so that you end up engaged and at risk for a longer time than you would have otherwise.

Experience with mass shootings show otherwise.

+1

Run, Hide, Fight

OMG you are not supposed to chase down an armed attacker if you are unarmed. Maybe you are very confident in your empty hand skills because of all of your Tae Bo experience? You are supposed to run the OTHER way duhhh! And this isn't a mass shooting, so it's not really relevant.

Yes, you are supposed to disarm the shooter nowadays. And maybe these people stopped him from shooting more protestors. Maybe he would have shot more if he hadn't been tackled and threatened. Maybe they saved many lives.

The kids have learned that the school police won’t help with mass shooters, they just hide. So now they are going right to the fight step. I can’t say I blame them.

[Anonymous]

Not from what I see in the video. The kid only shoots people who are assaulting him. One of which had an illegal handgun of his own.

This. Surely the illegal handgun guy should be up on charges. I wonder if this was the person who fired in the air while chasing just before the first victim lunged at the Kyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not from what I see in the video. The kid only shoots people who are assaulting him. One of which had an illegal handgun of his own.

This. Surely the illegal handgun guy should be up on charges. I wonder if this was the person who fired in the air while chasing just before the first victim lunged at the Kyle.

Why did this criminal cross state lines in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At least one of those he killed was a registered sex offender against children. Forgive me for not crying over his corpse. The kid had signed up for clean up crew as well, and there are videos/photos of him cleaning graffiti off buildings/etc.

Nothing prior to this indicates that he was there to shoot people up, etc. It seems he was there to do good. I'm never surprised when people with prior criminal records start to burn and loot a city, and then escalate to violence against others.

The lengths people will go to, to excuse white kids, and demonize black people. They point out that the man he killed was a child molester....like Rittenhouse knew that....or that it mattered. But Rittenhouse was "there to do good"? With a gun? At two in the morning? My 17-year-old volunteers to do good, but never at 2 am, and never with a long gun in a city 20 miles away with active riots that is under curfew.

THIS!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not from what I see in the video. The kid only shoots people who are assaulting him. One of which had an illegal handgun of his own.

This. Surely the illegal handgun guy should be up on charges. I wonder if this was the person who fired in the air while chasing just before the first victim lunged at the Kyle.

Why did this criminal cross state lines in the first place?

17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse-Lewis’ mom Wendy drove him and his AR-15 rifle from Antioch, IL to Kenosha WI to “defend” businesses that he does not own from riots. He ended up shooting 3 people, 2 died and 1 lost his arm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At least one of those he killed was a registered sex offender against children. Forgive me for not crying over his corpse. The kid had signed up for clean up crew as well, and there are videos/photos of him cleaning graffiti off buildings/etc.

Nothing prior to this indicates that he was there to shoot people up, etc. It seems he was there to do good. I'm never surprised when people with prior criminal records start to burn and loot a city, and then escalate to violence against others.

The lengths people will go to, to excuse white kids, and demonize black people. They point out that the man he killed was a child molester....like Rittenhouse knew that....or that it mattered. But Rittenhouse was "there to do good"? With a gun? At two in the morning? My 17-year-old volunteers to do good, but never at 2 am, and never with a long gun in a city 20 miles away with active riots that is under curfew.

x a million!!

Seriously w t f.

And are you telling me if you see some kid carrying an AR-15 in a fraught situation at 2 in the morning, you're going to be like, "phew, here comes authority to keep things calm?" How about after he kills someone, fires off some more rounds, and starts running. That's when you'll think, "What a fine young man"?

Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You win, right wing trolls.

I’m not right wing and I’m not a troll but the kid may be able to argue self defense.

Doubtful. He was violating a list of laws just being in Kenosha with that gun on Monday night. He also exercised disproportionate force against two men who had no lethal weapons.

He will have a very hard hill to climb to make a successful self defense argument. Frankly, if his case is heard in any major city in WI the jury will find him guilty. He may have a different verdict with a rural jury, but that won’t happen.

If you watch the video of the second shooting, he is kicked in the upper torso or possibly head by one person, and a second strikes him with a skateboard. Then he picks up his rifle and fires.

In the second incident:
1. It’s still a disproportionate use of force. Skateboard does not equal a gun in terms of lethality.
2. If the first shooting was justified, why did he flee? WI has not stand your ground law/Castle doctrine. Self defense argument would require him to wait on the scene. That’s another violation of laws by Rittenhouse.
3. Other people feared for their lives because the shooter just killed someone only 60 seconds before. He was assessed as a threat, dressed like a mass shooter, he illegally fled the scene of first shooting, etc. Totality of evidence indicates that they were justified to try to relieve him of his brandished weapon.

1. Disagree. He was just kicked in the head/upper torso and struck with a blunt instrument in the head/upper torso.
2. He's being pursued by a mob some of whom are armed with weapons including a handgun(shot by the Rittenhouse) and a skateboard, which if you have been following various BLM protests are used as weapons.
3. Debateable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy with the skateboard that got shot and went down had ahold of the gun strap and was trying to take the gun. That is not “retreating” at all. I am not a Trump supporter but you should expect to get shot if you assault someone and try to rip a gun out of their hands. Really stupid.

You're part of the problem.

+1
HE’D ALREADY SHOT SOMEONE.

What is broken in you peoples’ brains?!

DP here. Your brain is broken. I get it. This kid is a right wing nut job and he was looking for trouble. I'm not sympathetic to him at all.

Nonetheless, legally speaking, he might successfully argue self defense. If we are to be a nation of laws, then there will always be cases where the law lets a bad guy get away. Maybe the law needs to change, but as it is, he might have a defense.

He might have a self-defense claim, since self-defense is based solely on his own emotions. However, considering that he had just killed somebody, was knowingly in possession of an illegal weapon (he was a trainee cop), and fled the scene there are some issues raised. It is those issuea that present the big problems. First off it would set a horrible precedent if suspected murderers are allowed to shoot additional people after they flee the scene of the initial crime. Secondly, by brandishing the weapon he on its face posed a reasonable imminent threat. That threat was predicated on multiple felonies. In the pursuit of those felonies people died. That is felony murder and therefore self-defense doesnt necessarily come into play.