Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

" I don't think most people want to actually abolish the police so much as abolish the force that's there now and start anew. "

Why not simply abolish criminals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If democrats won’t defend property, property owners will.

Try pulling this crap on my business; I use 7.62 mm.

did the 17yo Antioch, IL resident own property in Kenosha that he defending, or are you just making up shit to justify illegal possession of a firearm and murder?

I don’t cast judgement on that boy - let the facts come out.

If he was wrong, let him bear all the consequences.

But I will not let anyone destroy what I have built. I will die on that hill, if need be.

IF HE WAS WRONG?!

What in the everloving eff happened to you that you can say things like this.

Are you one of the same people who claimed the police were right to shoot Jacob Blake?

I mean is that just your standard - anyone can shoot anyone whenever they like, because you can never be too careful? Does that only apply to Very Fine People, I assume?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure he will be charged. I cannot follow what is happening--but, I know this:

If the riots were brought under control earlier, they would all be alive.

Oh so you want to play that game?

If the Kenosha cop hadn't shot Jacob Blake, they would all be alive.

+1
Go back a few years. If Trump hadn’t given his blessing to racist violence and gotten Bill Barr to quit calling white terrorists terrorists, how many more people would still be alive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to hear the prosecutor’s thought process on charging the shooter. In the video where he shoots one person, the shooter is clearly trying to run away and the shooter kills the person who chased him (and deceased chaser clearly threw a Molotov cocktail at the shooter 3 seconds before he was shot)

In the video where he shoots two people, he’s clearly being attacked by a mob and the shooter is down on the ground. One person he shoots is trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and pictures seem to indicate the second wounded person in the mob had a gun.

This is basically a law school hypo from criminal law. Shooter shouldn’t have been there, he was underage, open carrying, but based on the video, against all desire, you have to argue self defense.

It wasn't a "molotov cocktail." It was a plastic bag. He had no right to use lethal force.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/_db155/status/1298587857699864580?s=20

[/twitter]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" I don't think most people want to actually abolish the police so much as abolish the force that's there now and start anew. "

Why not simply abolish criminals?

Would you say it’s evident from some of the video of the police being friendly with this 17 year old terrorist that perhaps the warnings were right and that police forces across the country have been infiltrated by white supremacists. I would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" I don't think most people want to actually abolish the police so much as abolish the force that's there now and start anew. "

Why not simply abolish criminals?

Would you say it’s evident from some of the video of the police being friendly with this 17 year old terrorist that perhaps the warnings were right and that police forces across the country have been infiltrated by white supremacists. I would.

+1. I saw the video of the shooting and I was appalled. the guy with the long rifle walks away and somebody making the video follows him and yells "he shot people" or something like that. police armored vehicles and then a police car drive by him while he is there with his bid rifle, shots have just gone out and police for sure heard them and the guy walks and nobody stops him. at a point he walks by the police car with his hands up and it looks like he expects to be stopped by the police car drives away. so, sounds of a barrage of shots, people run all over, guy with long rifle walks away from area where sounds of shots came, guy yells that he shot people, police totally ignore the guy with the big rifle and moves on. I was appalled. if instead of a white guy with a big rifle walking like that was a black guy with a handgun I wonder if he would have been ignored like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to hear the prosecutor’s thought process on charging the shooter. In the video where he shoots one person, the shooter is clearly trying to run away and the shooter kills the person who chased him (and deceased chaser clearly threw a Molotov cocktail at the shooter 3 seconds before he was shot)

In the video where he shoots two people, he’s clearly being attacked by a mob and the shooter is down on the ground. One person he shoots is trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and pictures seem to indicate the second wounded person in the mob had a gun.

This is basically a law school hypo from criminal law. Shooter shouldn’t have been there, he was underage, open carrying, but based on the video, against all desire, you have to argue self defense.

It wasn't a "molotov cocktail." It was a plastic bag. He had no right to use lethal force.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/_db155/status/1298587857699864580?s=20

[/twitter]

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to hear the prosecutor’s thought process on charging the shooter. In the video where he shoots one person, the shooter is clearly trying to run away and the shooter kills the person who chased him (and deceased chaser clearly threw a Molotov cocktail at the shooter 3 seconds before he was shot)

In the video where he shoots two people, he’s clearly being attacked by a mob and the shooter is down on the ground. One person he shoots is trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and pictures seem to indicate the second wounded person in the mob had a gun.

This is basically a law school hypo from criminal law. Shooter shouldn’t have been there, he was underage, open carrying, but based on the video, against all desire, you have to argue self defense.

It wasn't a "molotov cocktail." It was a plastic bag. He had no right to use lethal force.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/_db155/status/1298587857699864580?s=20

[/twitter]

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

Where does self-defense end? What would you do to defend yourself against someone menacing you with a rifle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to hear the prosecutor’s thought process on charging the shooter. In the video where he shoots one person, the shooter is clearly trying to run away and the shooter kills the person who chased him (and deceased chaser clearly threw a Molotov cocktail at the shooter 3 seconds before he was shot)

In the video where he shoots two people, he’s clearly being attacked by a mob and the shooter is down on the ground. One person he shoots is trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and pictures seem to indicate the second wounded person in the mob had a gun.

This is basically a law school hypo from criminal law. Shooter shouldn’t have been there, he was underage, open carrying, but based on the video, against all desire, you have to argue self defense.

It wasn't a "molotov cocktail." It was a plastic bag. He had no right to use lethal force.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/_db155/status/1298587857699864580?s=20

[/twitter]

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

+1 The shooter had been isolated and being chased by an armed mob. Somehow I dont think the pursuers were trying to give the shooter a kiss good night. They clearly had intent to do cause harm. The shooter was attempting to reach police lines when the second shooting occurred. My take is the prosecuter over charged to ease tensions.

[Anonymous]

I’m reading on Reddit that Kyle’s dad is a cop, he was in Kenosha as part of a militia group. The parents gave him the AR-15 as a gift.

Apparently, IL has laws that if any parent gives a child a gun and that child commits a crime with the gun, the parent can be charged with the same crime.

What a bunch of loser freaks.

[Anonymous]

Listen to the way the cops describe the murder of 2 people. He blames the victims for being out after curfew. Well what about the 17 year old with a rifle? He was out after curfew, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listen to the way the cops describe the murder of 2 people. He blames the victims for being out after curfew. Well what about the 17 year old with a rifle? He was out after curfew, too.

My guess is that some of the Kenosha cops are part of the militia group that was in the city that night, or are very familiar with the members. Likely the militia members are cops from neighboring towns. Kyle was part of that group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s only 17. What type of parent f#cked up this badly? Who lets their kid travel across state lines and have access to militia equipment?

This is so sick. I’m a white man, but white culture is responsible for this boy.

You're sick, blaming a mexican kids self-defense shooting on "white culture".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to hear the prosecutor’s thought process on charging the shooter. In the video where he shoots one person, the shooter is clearly trying to run away and the shooter kills the person who chased him (and deceased chaser clearly threw a Molotov cocktail at the shooter 3 seconds before he was shot)

In the video where he shoots two people, he’s clearly being attacked by a mob and the shooter is down on the ground. One person he shoots is trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and pictures seem to indicate the second wounded person in the mob had a gun.

This is basically a law school hypo from criminal law. Shooter shouldn’t have been there, he was underage, open carrying, but based on the video, against all desire, you have to argue self defense.

It wasn't a "molotov cocktail." It was a plastic bag. He had no right to use lethal force.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/_db155/status/1298587857699864580?s=20

[/twitter]

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

+1 The shooter had been isolated and being chased by an armed mob. Somehow I dont think the pursuers were trying to give the shooter a kiss good night. They clearly had intent to do cause harm. The shooter was attempting to reach police lines when the second shooting occurred. My take is the prosecuter over charged to ease tensions.

The pursuers can also claim self-defense. They weren't the ones wielding a rifle.

[Anonymous]

How long before Trump gets the 17 year old kid on the RNC speaker lineup?