Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another note in the defenses favor is that the only eyewitness to the Rosenbaum killing that we know of is a reporter for the Daily Caller who verified that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and trying to wrestle his gun away after Rittenhouse turned toward Rosenbaum after gunshots went off in the area. When you have video evidence and an eyewitness verifying Rittenhouse’s defense it’s going to be hard to convict Rittenhouse of anything besides weapons charges.

Also, the guy who later chased Rittenhouse with a handgun after the Rosenbaum shooting, who was shot in the forearm, is quoted on Facebook by his friend stating that he wished he “dumped the whole mag in him.” This guy is incriminating himself and should lawyer up as well.

Doesnt that make him the good guy with the gun? I can’t keep up.

Exactly. Victim 3 was the good guy with the gun. Victim 2 was the good guy with the skateboard.

Read the Constitution. Good guys don't use skateboards.

/s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

"Self-defense:
"The use of force to protect oneself from an attempted injury by another. If justified, self-defense is a defense to a number of crimes and torts involving force, including murder, assault and battery."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-defense

[Anonymous]

I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

This kid was radicalized on Facebook and by the President. He should not have been there and certainly not with an assault rifle carried over state lines. He caused more trouble than he solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

You are putting yourself in his shoes and feeling sympathy for him and his (stated) goal. But he was acting like a movie hero. IRL, John Wick would be a bad guy and charged with murder, even if he only killed criminals.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually nothing like this kid who is either dumb or evil or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

You are putting yourself in his shoes and feeling sympathy for him and his (stated) goal. But he was acting like a movie hero. IRL, John Wick would be a bad guy and charged with murder, even if he only killed criminals.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually nothing like this kid who is either dumb or evil or both.

Where was this kid’s parents? As a minor they should be responsible for his actions too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

Because giving him the weapon was a felony. In IL I believe that felony also comes with automatic felony murder charges if it is then used to kill someone. Morever whether he brought it from IL or WI is another potential felony that would attach felony murder to the shooter. If he tried to get rid of the murder weapon then that impacts his potential self-defense claim since it shows mal-intent. Lastly, if a friend in WI gave it to him then we start getting into a situation where there are multiple other people who have committed felonies.

They are basic easily determined facts that have a substantial material impact on the situation. That his defense team is claiming that he got it from a friend in WI raises.serioisnred.dlags because it implies that the police do not have the weapon. The murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence in this fact pattern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great video of Colin Noir, who is a lawyer, breaking this all down with video clips. As he says, no way this kid is convicted. Especially with every 2nd Amendment lawyer in the country begging to defend him pro bono.

So, Kyle Rottenhouse was a legend in his own mind?

Noir had me paying attention until he compared Rottenhouse to 18 year old soldiers. If Rottenhouse experienced basic training and actual military discipline, that might be convincing. Instead he had a legend in his own mind with a itchy trigger finger. Lock him up. Forever.

Your opinion of Rittenhouse doesn’t matter when it comes to whether he can legally claim that he was defending himself. There is video evidence out there that supports his claim. Also, it’s kind of petty to say “Noir had some points until he brought up 18 year olds dying in Iraq.” You obviously believe there’s some merit to a lot of Noir’s points aside from this statement.

Yeah except he said that in the first four minutes. Things I was agreeing with were none of these people should have been there, but that doesn’t absolve Rottenhouse of murder charges. He won’t be able to make a self defense or stand your ground case. Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

I appreciate your post.....

IRT the bolded.....

I have read that here more times than I can count.
You know what I haven't read? That the thugs who were looting, committing arson, and causing destruction shouldn't have been there.

As they say, it takes two to tango.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

You are putting yourself in his shoes and feeling sympathy for him and his (stated) goal. But he was acting like a movie hero. IRL, John Wick would be a bad guy and charged with murder, even if he only killed criminals.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually nothing like this kid who is either dumb or evil or both.

Same poster, I think he is naive and dumb. Through my lens I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt which he may or may not deserve.

The thing is, take this kid's odd story out of it and this could be a shop or restaurant owner protecting a business. That is why we need to support the police and to invest in and improve the police. Whatever their flaws, professional law enforcement with appropriate support is going to handle these situations far better than random people on the street with guns. Frankly all the people involved in this incident sound like bad actors to me and should have been cleared off the streets well before this happened. The constitutional right is to peacefully assemble - which does not describe an awful lot of what has been going on these past three months.