Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If everyone is armed nothing bad will happen

Signed GOP

Tell it to the Trump supporter who died in Portland last night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hmmmm

kinda changes things, huh

I said 30 pages back that if he was pointing his gun — aka brandishing - prior to the chase into the parking lot, his self-defense claim is toast. There is so much more video and eye witness testimony out there that hasn’t been made public. Something happened just before the chase. My guess has been that he was brandishing toward unarmed people and it was interpreted as a threat.

And you’re still wrong. From the Wisconsin self defense law:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

His lawyers will argue that he regained his right to self defense when he ran away from the first person chasing him.

[Anonymous]

Why would the police allow a 17-years teen with a gun to break the curfew, give him a water bottle and thank him for being there?

Why would the police ignore and drive past him after he killed two people and was surrendering to them, allowing him to escape to his home?

[Anonymous]

do you think the express encouragement of the vigilantes by the Kenosha police will result in the city being liable for civil damages for the deceased?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:do you think the express encouragement of the vigilantes by the Kenosha police will result in the city being liable for civil damages for the deceased?

Yes, but it changes nothing. The police are afraid to act. Elected officials, ahem, democrats, are afraid of the mob.
Armed citizens will fill that vacuum, for better or worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:do you think the express encouragement of the vigilantes by the Kenosha police will result in the city being liable for civil damages for the deceased?

Yes, but it changes nothing. The police are afraid to act. Elected officials, ahem, democrats, are afraid of the mob.
Armed citizens will fill that vacuum, for better or worse.

You are nut. wait a minute, a Nazi.

[Anonymous]

How would the police had acted if a black citizen had shot a trumpublican?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hmmmm

kinda changes things, huh

I said 30 pages back that if he was pointing his gun — aka brandishing - prior to the chase into the parking lot, his self-defense claim is toast. There is so much more video and eye witness testimony out there that hasn’t been made public. Something happened just before the chase. My guess has been that he was brandishing toward unarmed people and it was interpreted as a threat.

And you’re still wrong. From the Wisconsin self defense law:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

His lawyers will argue that he regained his right to self defense when he ran away from the first person chasing him.

I didn’t see “adequate notice” in his retreat, like the law requires.

I also don’t see how he faced “death or great bodily harm” from an unarmed person who is a similar size to the gunman.

He defense has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. I also think a jury of Kenosha residents won’t look too kindly upon his actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hmmmm

kinda changes things, huh

I said 30 pages back that if he was pointing his gun — aka brandishing - prior to the chase into the parking lot, his self-defense claim is toast. There is so much more video and eye witness testimony out there that hasn’t been made public. Something happened just before the chase. My guess has been that he was brandishing toward unarmed people and it was interpreted as a threat.

And you’re still wrong. From the Wisconsin self defense law:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

His lawyers will argue that he regained his right to self defense when he ran away from the first person chasing him.

I didn’t see “adequate notice” in his retreat, like the law requires.

I also don’t see how he faced “death or great bodily harm” from an unarmed person who is a similar size to the gunman.

He defense has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. I also think a jury of Kenosha residents won’t look too kindly upon his actions.

Turning your back and running away for 100 feet (like he did) is adequate notice in a 99.99% of cases where this type of thing comes up.

The question will be if he reasonably feared grave bodily harm. I can see the argument that a bare bones fist fight is not sufficient to cause a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm, but he’s going to be framed by his counsel as someone who came to protect property and business and his jury will be made up of people who’ve just seen their community suffer significant property damage and job loss.

I get that you don’t like his ideology and motivations and that you disagree with him being there in the first place, but your bias is blinding you if you don’t think he’s in a great position for a self defense claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:do you think the express encouragement of the vigilantes by the Kenosha police will result in the city being liable for civil damages for the deceased?

Yes, but it changes nothing. The police are afraid to act. Elected officials, ahem, democrats, are afraid of the mob.
Armed citizens will fill that vacuum, for better or worse.

False, objectively. Wisconsin has a “police bill of rights” statute that prevents cops from being involuntarily investigated, let alone fired, absent an actual felony conviction. And no cop has been or will be charged with anything, and the local prosecutor has already made that clear. As to civil liability on the part of the police, there is zero contingent risk. There is no such thing as a cop who is “afraid to act.” None.

[Anonymous]

yes, perfect cause celebre for the gop - party of monsters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes, perfect cause celebre for the gop - party of monsters

Doesn't matter. George Floyd was no saint too. He just had the misfortune to die an unjust death on camera. And this kid had the misfortune to get himself in a bad spot. He's lucky he isn't dead, so maybe this will work out for him, like that Kentucky Catholic kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Militia are despicable men.

What militia? All I see are domestic terrorists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How would the police had acted if a black citizen had shot a trumpublican?

Not one, TWO! And injured a third!

[Anonymous]

Still no denouncing of these right wing thugs by republicans.