Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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.

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

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:

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?!

That's gun culture for you. They think they are helping the kid by teaching "responsibility" through gun ownership. Not the first troubled kid who shot someone after given access to guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

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

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

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

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

Yes? Don’t you think the Parkland shooter could have been taken out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

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

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

Yes? Don’t you think the Parkland shooter could have been taken out?

Legally? Probably not if he is fleeing the scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

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

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

Yes? Don’t you think the Parkland shooter could have been taken out?

Legally? Probably not if he is fleeing the scene.

And if you change the scenario a bit, positions change. Suppose a black gunman were fleeing a scene and the cops shot him in the back. A lot of people would have a problem with that. Including me.

[Anonymous]

How is this any different than Charlottesville? A right wing white supremacist travels out of state to a protest and kills people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

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

If he is fleeing the scene, you can hunt him down and kill him? Is that your argument?

Yes? Don’t you think the Parkland shooter could have been taken out?

Legally? Probably not if he is fleeing the scene.

And if you change the scenario a bit, positions change. Suppose a black gunman were fleeing a scene and the cops shot him in the back. A lot of people would have a problem with that. Including me.

are you kidding me? the same people hailing this murderer as a hero are saying jacob blake deserved to be shot in the back even though he wasn't a gunman, and didn't have a gun, and hadn't committed any crime.

it depends on the circumstances! if someone is fleeing after murdering someone and you have no reason to believe they won't go murder another person, it seems pretty reasonable to use deadly force. if someone is fleeing after selling loose cigarettes and you have no reason to believe they are about to to murder someone, then it seems pretty unreasonable to use deadly force.

[Anonymous]

He’s a broken doughy monster piece of SHIT. Fck this pocket of right-wing panic and narcissism, Blue Lives Matter fecal chunks and in particular the police officer shitbird who sired him, and the DCUM monsters defending him.

[Anonymous]

Where are the law and order republicans? Shoot three people and it’s oh he is a hero. Your friend gets killed and you carry a sign and it’s let’s break out the water hoses and dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s a broken doughy monster piece of SHIT. Fck this pocket of right-wing panic and narcissism, Blue Lives Matter fecal chunks and in particular the police officer shitbird who sired him, and the DCUM monsters defending him.

Agree. He deserves nothing but hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s a broken doughy monster piece of SHIT. Fck this pocket of right-wing panic and narcissism, Blue Lives Matter fecal chunks and in particular the police officer shitbird who sired him, and the DCUM monsters defending him.

exactly. look at this fcking shtball situation, and speak the truth

[Anonymous]

So I guess the police sanctioned this guy? He had some type of meeting with the police where they gave him water and instructions. Someone should sue the police department over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are the law and order republicans? Shoot three people and it’s oh he is a hero. Your friend gets killed and you carry a sign and it’s let’s break out the water hoses and dogs.

+1 Is this how you're making my community safe? Encouraging illegally armed youth vigilantes to travel to my home with their illegal guns and shoot people on the street?

No thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the law and order republicans? Shoot three people and it’s oh he is a hero. Your friend gets killed and you carry a sign and it’s let’s break out the water hoses and dogs.

+1 Is this how you're making my community safe? Encouraging illegally armed youth vigilantes to travel to my home with their illegal guns and shoot people on the street?

No thank you.

+1,000,000


“Law and order” my ass.