Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

All I know is if you really want to sow division make sure everyone involved has a gun. Everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I know is if you really want to sow division make sure everyone involved has a gun. Everyone.

Fact. Republicans have really stoked division thru gun ownership by the unhinged.

[Anonymous]

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

He'll get his pardon tonight. Maybe the St Louis couple will adopt him.

[Anonymous]

Any source for the picture of the guy with paramedic hat and the gun other than Twitter? It just seems exactly like what I'd Photoshop if I were a foreign power looking to encourage division.

[Anonymous]

I just watched the videos of Rittenhouse shooting 3 people. He is emotionless, almost like a robot. You can see the life extinguish from the eyes of those who are murdered. It is so sad.

He will be convicted of 2nd degree murder because he violated the escalation of force. The first person he killed was chasing him on foot. A civilian can’t just start shooting someone who is chasing you. The person had no weapon. Further, Rittenhouse was dressed like every other mass shooter. How is anyone supposed to know he’s not there to harm everyone?

Rittenhouse then runs about a block from the first shooting. He is being pursued by a crowd BECAUSE HE JUST MURDERED someone. That’s why they are trying to disarm him. Once he is on the ground he starts firing without any control of his weapon. He kills one person trying to retreat. He hits another in the arm who has pulled out a concealed handgun.

In short, Rittenhouse is going to jail. “Self defense” for a civilian is a much higher threshold than the police. It does not allow you to kill someone who has no weapon and is multiple feet away from you.

Whomever brainwashed this child into a killing monster should be held responsible.

[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.

Dude, you aren't dying on any hill. Stop being a dramatic little b*tch.

[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.

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

In the shooting with one person shot (I hesitate to use the word victim, here) it’s almost impossible to argue self defense. The shooter had his back turned and was clearly running away. The person shot was clearly chasing. The moment the shooter turned to run away, it would be virtually impossible to argue the chaser was acting in self defense.

The video with two people shot is tougher to say because we don’t see everything before, but in that video the shooter is clearly on the ground in a defenseless posture. The shooter is loosely surrounded by 5 people. Person 1 tries to kick him in the head, person 2 clearly swings a skateboard at the shooter’s head. Shooter ducks and then shoots/kills person 2, person 3 gets within touching distance of shooter, twitter pictures show person 3 has a handgun. Person 3 is shot in the arm. Persons 4 & 5 back off. Those 5 individually or collectively could try to claim self defense, but based on the video tough to argue they were acting in self defense.

These are highly fact based questions and they’ll almost certainly be litigated at trial, but once the shooter retreated, it is very hard to argue self defense by the people giving chase.

As far as what I would do? I’d like to think I would let the firearm holder retreat and leave. I don’t think I would give chase.

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe the skateboarder was trying to take the gun from him because HE WAS SHOOTING PEOPLE.

I expect Trump to pardon Kyle tomorrow night at the White House to cap off his glorious Trump National Convention.

Can't pardon state crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The shooter was a 17 year old from another state who came there to do what he did. He had NO business being there and will hopefully rot in jail for the next 60 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the videos of Rittenhouse shooting 3 people. He is emotionless, almost like a robot. You can see the life extinguish from the eyes of those who are murdered. It is so sad.

He will be convicted of 2nd degree murder because he violated the escalation of force. The first person he killed was chasing him on foot. A civilian can’t just start shooting someone who is chasing you. The person had no weapon. Further, Rittenhouse was dressed like every other mass shooter. How is anyone supposed to know he’s not there to harm everyone?

Rittenhouse then runs about a block from the first shooting. He is being pursued by a crowd BECAUSE HE JUST MURDERED someone. That’s why they are trying to disarm him. Once he is on the ground he starts firing without any control of his weapon. He kills one person trying to retreat. He hits another in the arm who has pulled out a concealed handgun.

In short, Rittenhouse is going to jail. “Self defense” for a civilian is a much higher threshold than the police. It does not allow you to kill someone who has no weapon and is multiple feet away from you.

Whomever brainwashed this child into a killing monster should be held responsible.

I think this post really shows the impact of framing the issues.

1. You leave out that the first person killed had just thrown a Molotov cocktail (or other homemade incendiary device at the shooter) and chased the shooter into a semi-trapped corner.

2. The second Person who died was swinging a skateboard at the shooter’s head while shooter was on the ground.

3. The third person he shot appears to have probably had a handgun approaching the shooter who was still on the ground.

I’m not sure how you can watch the videos and argue that shooter escalated force. Why the second and third party shot were chasing the shooter who appears to have been retreating is irrelevant.

I’ll bet he gets offers for free defense counsel because some defense lawyer will see this as a strong case and an ability to make a reputation as defense counsel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The shooter was a 17 year old from another state who came there to do what he did. He had NO business being there and will hopefully rot in jail for the next 60 years.

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Shocker.

[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.

"The individual was involved in the use of firearms."

They're talking about a cop's child like he's a cop!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The shooter was a 17 year old from another state who came there to do what he did. He had NO business being there and will hopefully rot in jail for the next 60 years.

He had the legal right to be there (whether it was wise or not is another question). In most jurisdictions your right to self defense is very strong when you are legally somewhere you are allowed to be. Your right to self defense is strongest in your own property (home, car, work) and your right to self defense is incredibly weak if you are somewhere you don’t have a legal right to be (break in to the home of another). Whether he had no business there or not is irrelevant to his right to self defense.

I guess the curfew didn't apply to him in your mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the videos of Rittenhouse shooting 3 people. He is emotionless, almost like a robot. You can see the life extinguish from the eyes of those who are murdered. It is so sad.

He will be convicted of 2nd degree murder because he violated the escalation of force. The first person he killed was chasing him on foot. A civilian can’t just start shooting someone who is chasing you. The person had no weapon. Further, Rittenhouse was dressed like every other mass shooter. How is anyone supposed to know he’s not there to harm everyone?

Rittenhouse then runs about a block from the first shooting. He is being pursued by a crowd BECAUSE HE JUST MURDERED someone. That’s why they are trying to disarm him. Once he is on the ground he starts firing without any control of his weapon. He kills one person trying to retreat. He hits another in the arm who has pulled out a concealed handgun.

In short, Rittenhouse is going to jail. “Self defense” for a civilian is a much higher threshold than the police. It does not allow you to kill someone who has no weapon and is multiple feet away from you.

Whomever brainwashed this child into a killing monster should be held responsible.

I think this post really shows the impact of framing the issues.

1. You leave out that the first person killed had just thrown a Molotov cocktail (or other homemade incendiary device at the shooter) and chased the shooter into a semi-trapped corner.

2. The second Person who died was swinging a skateboard at the shooter’s head while shooter was on the ground.

3. The third person he shot appears to have probably had a handgun approaching the shooter who was still on the ground.

I’m not sure how you can watch the videos and argue that shooter escalated force. Why the second and third party shot were chasing the shooter who appears to have been retreating is irrelevant.

I’ll bet he gets offers for free defense counsel because some defense lawyer will see this as a strong case and an ability to make a reputation as defense counsel.

He still violated escalation of force in #1. The victim had thrown a piece of garbage on fire at Rittenhouse in one part of the parking lot. He missed and victim proceeded to chase. Rittenhouse shot the victim - who was wearing no shirt and had no weapon in his hands - on the other side of the parking lots. Easily 40-60 feet away from the thrown garbage.

Rittenhouse clearly violates escalation of force. He shot an unarmed man. That isn’t self defense.

Victims #2 and 3 are witnesses to a murder and attempt to disarm Rittenhouse, who had run directly into a crowded protest. Why should they not use every means available to disarm him?

Further, the skateboard victim was in retreat when he was shot. He’s easily 15-20 feet away from Rittenhouse and is killed while moving away from the assailiant. Again, this a violation of escalation of force AND not a legitimate self-defense argument as the victim was in retreat.

Rittenhouse deserves a lengthy sentence. He is a monster.