Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

New York Times actually did their jobs for once

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809?s=12

Tired of people talking out of their a$$es on this

[Anonymous]

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

I'm not right wing and I don't like what he did at all. Why would you assume that anyone who disagrees with you on any particular case is automatically right wing? Must we always agree on everything?

[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.

They had to cough up money for jumping the gun on that douchebag kid mocking Native Americans or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The cops tossed a bottle of water out of a moving vehicle at some point before any of the shooting started. "Meeting with police who gave him water and instructions" is either entirely false or creates a false impression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New York Times actually did their jobs for once

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809?s=12

Tired of people talking out of their a$$es on this

This was excellent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same here. Anyone seeking to lionize the kid is wrong. But the defund-the-police types who suddenly change their tune & want the cops to gun him down in the street are wrong as well.

[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."

+1. I read where the Sheriff said those guys wanted him to deputize them & he said this kind of thing is exactly why you wouldn't deputize these knuckle draggers.

[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?

I thought cops were bad when they tried to clear people from the streets. But, you made a jump from "illegal mob" which is probably true to "vigilante" which might be true but requires more evidence.

[Anonymous]

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

Militias and protesters = mostly peaceful. But the outliers ruin it for everyone. People bellyache about "their rights" when the police tell them to go home, but when these outliers get involved, it's time to pack it up and come back another time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New York Times actually did their jobs for once

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809?s=12

Tired of people talking out of their a$$es on this

+1. That's a great thread. I don't love the right wing nut jobs who need a gun to go to the grocery store, but I also don't like the social justice warriors making up facts to suit their narratives. Centrism feels lonely these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New York Times actually did their jobs for once

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809?s=12

Tired of people talking out of their a$$es on this

+1. That's a great thread. I don't love the right wing nut jobs who need a gun to go to the grocery store, but I also don't like the social justice warriors making up facts to suit their narratives. Centrism feels lonely these days.

yup it's tough when you actually have to think for yourself instead of what's best for you "Team"

[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?

I thought cops were bad when they tried to clear people from the streets. But, you made a jump from "illegal mob" which is probably true to "vigilante" which might be true but requires more evidence.

“vigilante” is a word - not a legal charge. I’m perfectly comfortable calling the armed white men who crossed the border with illegal guns to stop protests against police violence “vigilantes.”

[Anonymous]

Yup yup yup just a coupla lonely indignant centrists ignoring why a high school dropout not yet 18 crossed state lines to break curfew, arm himself, and fire a weapon at protestors
against police violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This isn't about your feelings. This is about the law.

I thought cops were bad when they tried to clear people from the streets. But, you made a jump from "illegal mob" which is probably true to "vigilante" which might be true but requires more evidence.

“vigilante” is a word - not a legal charge. I’m perfectly comfortable calling the armed white men who crossed the border with illegal guns to stop protests against police violence “vigilantes.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Militias and protesters = mostly peaceful. But the outliers ruin it for everyone. People bellyache about "their rights" when the police tell them to go home, but when these outliers get involved, it's time to pack it up and come back another time.

no, militias are not peaceful. they open carry weapons and have a specifically paramilitary purpose. they are inherently unpeaceful.