Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

The same right-wing idiots posting excuses for that murdering shitbird here are likely the ones who were telling us all after Charlottesville that the white supremacist driver who ran all those people down was actually fleeing some protester with a baseball bat.

Lies lies lies. No personal responsibility. The right-wingers are a cancer that needs to be burned out of our society.

[Anonymous]

White people put up a guillotine today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was NO flaming object, that is fake news. (Some people initially wondered about that due to the lighting of the video but it has been debunked already).

He was not necessarily fleeing. He ran towards an abandoned vehicle and then his behind it before opening fire. He could have been fleeing but he also could have been repositioning himself to fire. We cannot know for sure either way. Any attempt to claim otherwise is projecting intent.

After he shot the first victim, he started running again. I'd be really shocked if he didn't claim he was fleeing in fear for his life.

He could claim that but that doesn't make it necessarily true. There is a reasonable alternative interpretation of those facts.

What I'm finding interesting is the dad. If it is true that the dad gave him the weapon then the dad committed a black letter felony. If it is true that the dad is a police officer that makes it even worse because he is expected to know what the law is. If the dad was also in Kenosha, as part of the "militia", and Kyle was there with him that ups it a few more levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was NO flaming object, that is fake news. (Some people initially wondered about that due to the lighting of the video but it has been debunked already).

He was not necessarily fleeing. He ran towards an abandoned vehicle and then his behind it before opening fire. He could have been fleeing but he also could have been repositioning himself to fire. We cannot know for sure either way. Any attempt to claim otherwise is projecting intent.

After he shot the first victim, he started running again. I'd be really shocked if he didn't claim he was fleeing in fear for his life.

He could claim that but that doesn't make it necessarily true. There is a reasonable alternative interpretation of those facts.

What I'm finding interesting is the dad. If it is true that the dad gave him the weapon then the dad committed a black letter felony. If it is true that the dad is a police officer that makes it even worse because he is expected to know what the law is. If the dad was also in Kenosha, as part of the "militia", and Kyle was there with him that ups it a few more levels.

If this is true about his dad, dad needs to be held accountable.

What on earth was he thinking?

I read an article, I think it was Boston GLobe, that stated Kyle was a highs school drop out, had trouble in school, at a minimum that's what we all now red flag for as someone at risk for school violence, and he goes and gives him a gun! An AR_!5. Again what was he thinking?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

That’s just false. If he was running away, he had disengaged and retreated and would have a viable defense if somebody chases him down. Generally speaking his prior conduct won’t be an issue if he was fleeing an earlier conflict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The same right-wing idiots posting excuses for that murdering shitbird here are likely the ones who were telling us all after Charlottesville that the white supremacist driver who ran all those people down was actually fleeing some protester with a baseball bat.

Lies lies lies. No personal responsibility. The right-wingers are a cancer that needs to be burned out of our society.

Thank you

And JFC I can't imagine how this is going over with swing voters, who are looking at these lunatics cheering on a child who murdered two people with a guy his parents gave him illegally. This is how you make us safe? By cheering on THIS guy? By making him your cause celebre?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

That’s just false. If he was running away, he had disengaged and retreated and would have a viable defense if somebody chases him down. Generally speaking his prior conduct won’t be an issue if he was fleeing an earlier conflict.

He'd just murdered someone, and for all anyone knew he was about to start shooting again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What is he doing there with a gun? He has no interest or ties to the community. He is just a thug looking for trouble and found it. Now his live is over because he believe trump and people like you. He is going to get the death penalty.

Pretty sure the supreme court of the US abolished minors getting death penalty a while ago. Isn't that DC sniper kid serving life now? He plugged a lot of people.

I see this as a win-win; one side of the loser spectrum took out a couple other loser sides of the spectrum. Society is better off all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same right-wing idiots posting excuses for that murdering shitbird here are likely the ones who were telling us all after Charlottesville that the white supremacist driver who ran all those people down was actually fleeing some protester with a baseball bat.

Lies lies lies. No personal responsibility. The right-wingers are a cancer that needs to be burned out of our society.

Thank you

And JFC I can't imagine how this is going over with swing voters, who are looking at these lunatics cheering on a child who murdered two people with a guy his parents gave him illegally. This is how you make us safe? By cheering on THIS guy? By making him your cause celebre?

I feel like one of the reasons that people aren’t more outraged is that the media doesn’t come out and say what happened; they’re always hedging and “allegedly”-ing and not putting together the whole story - and that’s the “mainstream media.” The right wing media outright spins lies that their rubes then go push: “he was running away; it was self defense!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same right-wing idiots posting excuses for that murdering shitbird here are likely the ones who were telling us all after Charlottesville that the white supremacist driver who ran all those people down was actually fleeing some protester with a baseball bat.

Lies lies lies. No personal responsibility. The right-wingers are a cancer that needs to be burned out of our society.

Thank you

And JFC I can't imagine how this is going over with swing voters, who are looking at these lunatics cheering on a child who murdered two people with a guy his parents gave him illegally. This is how you make us safe? By cheering on THIS guy? By making him your cause celebre?

I feel like one of the reasons that people aren’t more outraged is that the media doesn’t come out and say what happened; they’re always hedging and “allegedly”-ing and not putting together the whole story - and that’s the “mainstream media.” The right wing media outright spins lies that their rubes then go push: “he was running away; it was self defense!”

Well, they aren't supposed to libel him. So they can't say he killed two people. They can say he's accused of killing two people, or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

That’s just false. If he was running away, he had disengaged and retreated and would have a viable defense if somebody chases him down. Generally speaking his prior conduct won’t be an issue if he was fleeing an earlier conflict.

So when the next school/concert/church/movie theatre shooter flees the scene, it becomes self defense if he then shoots a good guy trying to stop him. Your brain is diseased. GTFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What is he doing there with a gun? He has no interest or ties to the community. He is just a thug looking for trouble and found it. Now his live is over because he believe trump and people like you. He is going to get the death penalty.

Pretty sure the supreme court of the US abolished minors getting death penalty a while ago. Isn't that DC sniper kid serving life now? He plugged a lot of people.

I see this as a win-win; one side of the loser spectrum took out a couple other loser sides of the spectrum. Society is better off all around.

The death penalty would be too good for him. He should have to live with the consequences of his actions, for his natural life. He can suffer while alive, and then again if there’s a hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Before the first shooting, he was being chased into a parking lot. As he was being chased, an unknown gunman fires a shot. (Not by the chaser, but Rittenhouse wouldn't necessarily know who was shooting -- just that he was being chased & there was a gunshot). Rittenhouse turned toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunged toward him. That's when he opened fire himself: four times, shooting a man in the head.

So he's being chased as weapons are being fired. That's a pretty good self-defense argument.

Why was he being chased?

It’s an important question and there’s no video evidence at this time. Preceding the initial chase into the parking lot, there was a dispute/standoff between armed militia members and protestors. Apparently there was shoving, yelling, and brandishing of weapons. If Rittenhouse brandished his weapon at anyone before the initial chase, his already-tenuous self defense claim evaporates.

That’s just false. If he was running away, he had disengaged and retreated and would have a viable defense if somebody chases him down. Generally speaking his prior conduct won’t be an issue if he was fleeing an earlier conflict.

He'd just murdered someone, and for all anyone knew he was about to start shooting again!

All that means is that the people chasing him win't be charged with a crime since they reasonably thought he was a threat. What matters is his intent when he went there and /or when he actually discharged the gun the first time.. And it may diifficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't defending trying to defend himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was NO flaming object, that is fake news. (Some people initially wondered about that due to the lighting of the video but it has been debunked already).

He was not necessarily fleeing. He ran towards an abandoned vehicle and then his behind it before opening fire. He could have been fleeing but he also could have been repositioning himself to fire. We cannot know for sure either way. Any attempt to claim otherwise is projecting intent.

After he shot the first victim, he started running again. I'd be really shocked if he didn't claim he was fleeing in fear for his life.

He ran all over the place. He shot lots of bullets, some of which hit people. There are lots of videos of him running. Running away? Running to somewhere? Just running around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same right-wing idiots posting excuses for that murdering shitbird here are likely the ones who were telling us all after Charlottesville that the white supremacist driver who ran all those people down was actually fleeing some protester with a baseball bat.

Lies lies lies. No personal responsibility. The right-wingers are a cancer that needs to be burned out of our society.

Thank you

And JFC I can't imagine how this is going over with swing voters, who are looking at these lunatics cheering on a child who murdered two people with a guy his parents gave him illegally. This is how you make us safe? By cheering on THIS guy? By making him your cause celebre?

I feel like one of the reasons that people aren’t more outraged is that the media doesn’t come out and say what happened; they’re always hedging and “allegedly”-ing and not putting together the whole story - and that’s the “mainstream media.” The right wing media outright spins lies that their rubes then go push: “he was running away; it was self defense!”

Well, they aren't supposed to libel him. So they can't say he killed two people. They can say he's accused of killing two people, or whatever.

It's on video. Is there anyone saying he didn't kill people?