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:

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.

That's the point. You should have stopped there.

But a lot of people are not taking the particular circumstances into account. They are making assumptions because he is a white out-of-town RWNJ. They would make different assumptions if he were a local black kid shot in the back by cops.

[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.

Personally, I am not defending him. He definitely did wrong, and so did his father and the cops on the scene. I am just not convinced he is legally liable for murder based on the facts we have so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I do not extend the benefit of the doubt to people that knowingly travel to a volatile area, <strike>with an illegal gun,</strike> breaking curfew and find themselves in an altercation. This is not someone who respects the law.

Gun or not, I also do not extend the benefit of the doubt to people that knowingly travel to a volatile area, break curfew, and find themselves in an altercation. That is not someone who respects the law.

[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:

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.

That's the point. You should have stopped there.

But a lot of people are not taking the particular circumstances into account. They are making assumptions because he is a white out-of-town RWNJ. They would make different assumptions if he were a local black kid shot in the back by cops.

No one is making assumptions. This kid traveled TO Kenosha with his AR-15 to be part of an illegal vigilante mob. The violence he inflicted seems to be the point of his trip - and is if nothing else entirely predictable. He killed two people - and he shouldn't have been there! What part of personal responsibility do you not understand? He was violating the law being there in the first place. He went looking for trouble, and he sure found it, and now two people are dead.

[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!

Maybe he'd just murdered someone. But maybe he was fleeing, heard the nearby gunshot, and panicked thinking it was a gunshot from the person pursuing him before he had shot anyone. That's, frankly, part of why you don't want to let these non-peaceful protests escalate in the first place. You can't tell what the hell is going on in the chaos -- can't tell who the good guys and the bad guys are. That's why cops shouldn't turn a blind eye to property damage or people blocking traffic and all of the other protest-adjacent behavior. Keeping that nonsense to a minimum makes it easier to protect actual protesters from violent assholes like Rittenhouse or, if not Rittenhouse himself, these self-proclaimed "militia" 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:

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.

That's the point. You should have stopped there.

But a lot of people are not taking the particular circumstances into account. They are making assumptions because he is a white out-of-town RWNJ. They would make different assumptions if he were a local black kid shot in the back by cops.

No one is making assumptions. This kid traveled TO Kenosha with his AR-15 to be part of an illegal vigilante mob. The violence he inflicted seems to be the point of his trip - and is if nothing else entirely predictable. He killed two people - and he shouldn't have been there! What part of personal responsibility do you not understand? He was violating the law being there in the first place. He went looking for trouble, and he sure found it, and now two people are dead.

The vigilante mob wasn't illegal. I agree they shouldn't have been there and the cops should not have encouraged them. And I also agree that this was predictable, in that one of these militia types was eventually going to shoot someone. I just don't agree we have sufficient evidence yet to convict this particular person of murder. Don't be surprised if he gets off. If he does, I won't be surprised at the protests that follow.

[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.

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!

Maybe he'd just murdered someone. But maybe he was fleeing, heard the nearby gunshot, and panicked thinking it was a gunshot from the person pursuing him before he had shot anyone. That's, frankly, part of why you don't want to let these non-peaceful protests escalate in the first place. You can't tell what the hell is going on in the chaos -- can't tell who the good guys and the bad guys are. That's why cops shouldn't turn a blind eye to property damage or people blocking traffic and all of the other protest-adjacent behavior. Keeping that nonsense to a minimum makes it easier to protect actual protesters from violent assholes like Rittenhouse or, if not Rittenhouse himself, these self-proclaimed "militia" people.

This.
And it's also why you don't want the cops encouraging these militias to "help."

[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.

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!

Maybe he'd just murdered someone. But maybe he was fleeing, heard the nearby gunshot, and panicked thinking it was a gunshot from the person pursuing him before he had shot anyone. That's, frankly, part of why you don't want to let these non-peaceful protests escalate in the first place. You can't tell what the hell is going on in the chaos -- can't tell who the good guys and the bad guys are. That's why cops shouldn't turn a blind eye to property damage or people blocking traffic and all of the other protest-adjacent behavior. Keeping that nonsense to a minimum makes it easier to protect actual protesters from violent assholes like Rittenhouse or, if not Rittenhouse himself, these self-proclaimed "militia" people.

This.
And it's also why you don't want the cops encouraging these militias to "help."

The 17yo is not part of a militia.

[Anonymous]

The vigilante mob wasn't illegal. I agree they shouldn't have been there and the cops should not have encouraged them. And I also agree that this was predictable, in that one of these militia types was eventually going to shoot someone. I just don't agree we have sufficient evidence yet to convict this particular person of murder. Don't be surprised if he gets off. If he does, I won't be surprised at the protests that follow.

Him being there was illegal. He was breaking curfew, and carrying an illegal gun, in order to pretend to be a police man at 2 am. That's being part of an illegal vigilante mob. Unless you think the law doesn't apply to very fine white boys or something?

[Anonymous]

The right wing is completely unhinged in their inconsistencies trying to defend this. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The vigilante mob wasn't illegal. I agree they shouldn't have been there and the cops should not have encouraged them. And I also agree that this was predictable, in that one of these militia types was eventually going to shoot someone. I just don't agree we have sufficient evidence yet to convict this particular person of murder. Don't be surprised if he gets off. If he does, I won't be surprised at the protests that follow.

Him being there was illegal. He was breaking curfew, and carrying an illegal gun, in order to pretend to be a police man at 2 am. That's being part of an illegal vigilante mob. Unless you think the law doesn't apply to very fine white boys or something?

No that's breaking curfew and illegal carry. He's likely to be convicted of those. A bunch of guys standing around with guns isn't "a vigilante mob." I do think open carry itself should be illegal for this very reason, but it isn't.

[Anonymous]

The kid is an outlier. The militias have been mostly peaceful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The right wing is completely unhinged in their inconsistencies trying to defend this. Sad.

You could have stopped right there, friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The vigilante mob wasn't illegal. I agree they shouldn't have been there and the cops should not have encouraged them. And I also agree that this was predictable, in that one of these militia types was eventually going to shoot someone. I just don't agree we have sufficient evidence yet to convict this particular person of murder. Don't be surprised if he gets off. If he does, I won't be surprised at the protests that follow.

Him being there was illegal. He was breaking curfew, and carrying an illegal gun, in order to pretend to be a police man at 2 am. That's being part of an illegal vigilante mob. Unless you think the law doesn't apply to very fine white boys or something?

No that's breaking curfew and illegal carry. He's likely to be convicted of those. A bunch of guys standing around with guns isn't "a vigilante mob." I do think open carry itself should be illegal for this very reason, but it isn't.

Holy cow. I truly am blown away by what you're saying.

Do you speak English? Do you know what the word "vigilante" means? Do you know there were groups of regular old armed citizens who decided to descend on Kenosha as an organized mob to take justice into their own hands? That's what vigilante means.

https://apnews.com/64ff4770fe1f1daca001b2fbaae0933b

Repeated calls for armed vigilantes to travel to Kenosha, Wisconsin, to protect businesses following the police shooting of Jacob Blake spread across social media in the hours before two people were shot to death and a third was wounded during a third night of unrest in the city.

Multiple threads on Facebook and Reddit urged militias and other armed people to head to the protests, researchers at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab said in a blog post Wednesday. The demonstrations broke out after Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, was left paralyzed Sunday when he was shot from behind by officers answering a domestic dispute call.

Two people were killed by gunfire Tuesday night and Kyle Rittenhouse, a white 17-year-old from nearby Antioch, Illinois, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of first-degree intentional homicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The kid is an outlier. The militias have been mostly peaceful.

No, they’re there to foment more chaos. And “mostly peaceful” is not peaceful.