Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[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?

+1. The most hilarious is the people who want to defund and abolish police after the first ones to cry for someone to call them lol

This is how stupid these people are. They had a defund the police rally and ask for police presence for their safety. You want to use the people for your safety who you are trying to abolish? You can make this stupidity up.

[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 victim who survived had said he had every intention do shooting Kyle and his only regret was not shooting him first and emptying his mag into him.

These people are ignorant and too stupid to understand anything. Regardless what object was thrown, Kyle was running away. The guy chased him, cornered him, and then tried to grab his gun. He had every right to act in self-defense and shoot him.


It’s a little ironic and crazy how the left supports criminals. The first guy was a level 3 sex offender with a long criminal history. The second guy had a long history of domestic abuse that included strangulation and kidnapping. The third guy was in possession of an illegal gun since he was a felon with a long history. I guess the left supports these types of guys since you want to him them into heroes.

[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.

+1. Self-defense.

First f all these Trumpsters and their vigilante/warrior mentality. They're joining the fray wanting for an opportunity to pull the trigger to live out their Call of Duty wet dreams dressed in their body armor. Also, f all these looters who think that malicious destruction of property is doing themselves a favor.

However, as the first poster stated, this is such a classic law school hypo and this will end up for the jury to decide because the facts are so disputed. No objective legal analyst would look at those videos and use the word "clearly," like it or not it was not clear because the footages don't capture the entire genesis of the story and the footage was grainy AF.

Also look at the charges:

1. First degree reckless homicide
2. First degree recklessly endangering safety
3. First degree intentional homicide

My random two cents is that he'll be most likely be found guilty of reckless endangering safety. As for the murder, we need to remember we have to look at the found individually and he may be found guilty for the one, both, or none. Having said that, I almost guarantee you that the prosecutor would introduce his past blue lives matter and prior fighting footage background into his argument that Rittenhouse was looking for a fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 victim who survived had said he had every intention do shooting Kyle and his only regret was not shooting him first and emptying his mag into him.

These people are ignorant and too stupid to understand anything. Regardless what object was thrown, Kyle was running away. The guy chased him, cornered him, and then tried to grab his gun. He had every right to act in self-defense and shoot him.


It’s a little ironic and crazy how the left supports criminals. The first guy was a level 3 sex offender with a long criminal history. The second guy had a long history of domestic abuse that included strangulation and kidnapping. The third guy was in possession of an illegal gun since he was a felon with a long history. I guess the left supports these types of guys since you want to him them into heroes.

I think he has a good claim at self-defense, but I think the immediate PP is also pretty stupid. The personal lives of the victims have jack shit to do with Rittenhouse's defense. It's not like he researched their criminal records before executing them.

[Anonymous]

The people, left & right, who are saying this is a clear cut case of anything don't really care about the facts of this case -- they just want to cherry-pick details as weapons to use in a fight with the other side.

[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.

+1. Self-defense.

First f all these Trumpsters and their vigilante/warrior mentality. They're joining the fray wanting for an opportunity to pull the trigger to live out their Call of Duty wet dreams dressed in their body armor. Also, f all these looters who think that malicious destruction of property is doing themselves a favor.

However, as the first poster stated, this is such a classic law school hypo and this will end up for the jury to decide because the facts are so disputed. No objective legal analyst would look at those videos and use the word "clearly," like it or not it was not clear because the footages don't capture the entire genesis of the story and the footage was grainy AF.

Also look at the charges:

1. First degree reckless homicide
2. First degree recklessly endangering safety
3. First degree intentional homicide

My random two cents is that he'll be most likely be found guilty of reckless endangering safety. As for the murder, we need to remember we have to look at the found individually and he may be found guilty for the one, both, or none. Having said that, I almost guarantee you that the prosecutor would introduce his past blue lives matter and prior fighting footage background into his argument that Rittenhouse was looking for a fight.

Whatever the genesis, it is indeed clear that Kyle was running away both times from the people he eventually shot. I’m not sure how you can watch the video and say the word “clear” is out of line in describing Kyle running away. Ultimately, the Kyle running away will be the backbone of his self defense claim.

[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.

+1. Self-defense.

First f all these Trumpsters and their vigilante/warrior mentality. They're joining the fray wanting for an opportunity to pull the trigger to live out their Call of Duty wet dreams dressed in their body armor. Also, f all these looters who think that malicious destruction of property is doing themselves a favor.

However, as the first poster stated, this is such a classic law school hypo and this will end up for the jury to decide because the facts are so disputed. No objective legal analyst would look at those videos and use the word "clearly," like it or not it was not clear because the footages don't capture the entire genesis of the story and the footage was grainy AF.

Also look at the charges:

1. First degree reckless homicide
2. First degree recklessly endangering safety
3. First degree intentional homicide

My random two cents is that he'll be most likely be found guilty of reckless endangering safety. As for the murder, we need to remember we have to look at the found individually and he may be found guilty for the one, both, or none. Having said that, I almost guarantee you that the prosecutor would introduce his past blue lives matter and prior fighting footage background into his argument that Rittenhouse was looking for a fight.

You’re funny. So you will talk about this kids prior history but you want to defend the criminals past history?

All victims had criminal records.

Jacob Blake was a violent thug who raped a 14 year old girl.

Breonna Taylor was a criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I stopped reading here:

It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.

That's not how it works.

You should have kept reading, Sparky. I'm a practicing attorney and you're right, that's not how that works. But his point still stands, in a civil case it COULD count as a mitigating factor and some percentage of the harm will be assigned to you depending and unless the defendant's actions were so egregious that no act of the plaintiff could have prevented the outcome.

I'm not criminal defense lawyer, but every other point he/she made is accurate.

To the assholes mocking him for being a paralegal: I've worked with many paralegals that could run circles around a lawyer. You're probably some bitter loser living in your parent's basement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 victim who survived had said he had every intention do shooting Kyle and his only regret was not shooting him first and emptying his mag into him.

These people are ignorant and too stupid to understand anything. Regardless what object was thrown, Kyle was running away. The guy chased him, cornered him, and then tried to grab his gun. He had every right to act in self-defense and shoot him.


It’s a little ironic and crazy how the left supports criminals. The first guy was a level 3 sex offender with a long criminal history. The second guy had a long history of domestic abuse that included strangulation and kidnapping. The third guy was in possession of an illegal gun since he was a felon with a long history. I guess the left supports these types of guys since you want to him them into heroes.

I think he has a good claim at self-defense, but I think the immediate PP is also pretty stupid. The personal lives of the victims have jack shit to do with Rittenhouse's defense. It's not like he researched their criminal records before executing them.

PP here. I was just pointing out how the left love putting these guys forward who are criminals as some type of heroes. They did the same with George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Jacob Blake, etc.

This kid is immediately labeled a racist and white supremacist, but those criminals are labeled as heroes. Ironic, huh?

And for you, there is nothing racist about supporting cops and backing the blue.

[Anonymous]

What was wrong with Breonna Taylor?

Floyd wasn't a hero. Just a guy who didn't deserve a knee on his neck for almost 9 minutes.

Blake isn't a hero. Just a guy who shouldn't have been shot 7 times.

[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.

+1. Self-defense.

First f all these Trumpsters and their vigilante/warrior mentality. They're joining the fray wanting for an opportunity to pull the trigger to live out their Call of Duty wet dreams dressed in their body armor. Also, f all these looters who think that malicious destruction of property is doing themselves a favor.

However, as the first poster stated, this is such a classic law school hypo and this will end up for the jury to decide because the facts are so disputed. No objective legal analyst would look at those videos and use the word "clearly," like it or not it was not clear because the footages don't capture the entire genesis of the story and the footage was grainy AF.

Also look at the charges:

1. First degree reckless homicide
2. First degree recklessly endangering safety
3. First degree intentional homicide

My random two cents is that he'll be most likely be found guilty of reckless endangering safety. As for the murder, we need to remember we have to look at the found individually and he may be found guilty for the one, both, or none. Having said that, I almost guarantee you that the prosecutor would introduce his past blue lives matter and prior fighting footage background into his argument that Rittenhouse was looking for a fight.

You’re funny. So you will talk about this kids prior history but you want to defend the criminals past history?

All victims had criminal records.

Jacob Blake was a violent thug who raped a 14 year old girl.

Breonna Taylor was a criminal.

OMFG both of these statements are untrue and would be irrelevant if they were true. Stop listening to Rush/Fox/infowars.

[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.

+1. Self-defense.

First f all these Trumpsters and their vigilante/warrior mentality. They're joining the fray wanting for an opportunity to pull the trigger to live out their Call of Duty wet dreams dressed in their body armor. Also, f all these looters who think that malicious destruction of property is doing themselves a favor.

However, as the first poster stated, this is such a classic law school hypo and this will end up for the jury to decide because the facts are so disputed. No objective legal analyst would look at those videos and use the word "clearly," like it or not it was not clear because the footages don't capture the entire genesis of the story and the footage was grainy AF.

Also look at the charges:

1. First degree reckless homicide
2. First degree recklessly endangering safety
3. First degree intentional homicide

My random two cents is that he'll be most likely be found guilty of reckless endangering safety. As for the murder, we need to remember we have to look at the found individually and he may be found guilty for the one, both, or none. Having said that, I almost guarantee you that the prosecutor would introduce his past blue lives matter and prior fighting footage background into his argument that Rittenhouse was looking for a fight.

You’re funny. So you will talk about this kids prior history but you want to defend the criminals past history?

All victims had criminal records.

Jacob Blake was a violent thug who raped a 14 year old girl.

Breonna Taylor was a criminal.

I did not take a position at all and it's very obvious that you are. I'm saying the prosecutor, as any attorney would, try to introduce evidence of Rittenhouse's propensity to commit those crimes. CLEARLY, you don't understand there is a legal angle to the analysis and you are letting emotions speak for yourself.

[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.

+1. Self-defense.

First f all these Trumpsters and their vigilante/warrior mentality. They're joining the fray wanting for an opportunity to pull the trigger to live out their Call of Duty wet dreams dressed in their body armor. Also, f all these looters who think that malicious destruction of property is doing themselves a favor.

However, as the first poster stated, this is such a classic law school hypo and this will end up for the jury to decide because the facts are so disputed. No objective legal analyst would look at those videos and use the word "clearly," like it or not it was not clear because the footages don't capture the entire genesis of the story and the footage was grainy AF.

Also look at the charges:

1. First degree reckless homicide
2. First degree recklessly endangering safety
3. First degree intentional homicide

My random two cents is that he'll be most likely be found guilty of reckless endangering safety. As for the murder, we need to remember we have to look at the found individually and he may be found guilty for the one, both, or none. Having said that, I almost guarantee you that the prosecutor would introduce his past blue lives matter and prior fighting footage background into his argument that Rittenhouse was looking for a fight.

Whatever the genesis, it is indeed clear that Kyle was running away both times from the people he eventually shot. I’m not sure how you can watch the video and say the word “clear” is out of line in describing Kyle running away. Ultimately, the Kyle running away will be the backbone of his self defense claim.

Devil's advocate: he is running away from something as much as he is running towards something. He was definitely running.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was wrong with Breonna Taylor?

Floyd wasn't a hero. Just a guy who didn't deserve a knee on his neck for almost 9 minutes.

Blake isn't a hero. Just a guy who shouldn't have been shot 7 times.

Seriously. You don't need to be a perfect person to not deserve to be senselessly and unlawfully killed by police, OR by some 17 year old militia man with an illegal gun.

There are no perfect people, PP. Someone who wanted to smear you could find something, too. Doesn't mean you deserve to die with a knee in your neck, or because a vigilante teen decided to go out on patrol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Self-defense.

First f all these Trumpsters and their vigilante/warrior mentality. They're joining the fray wanting for an opportunity to pull the trigger to live out their Call of Duty wet dreams dressed in their body armor. Also, f all these looters who think that malicious destruction of property is doing themselves a favor.

However, as the first poster stated, this is such a classic law school hypo and this will end up for the jury to decide because the facts are so disputed. No objective legal analyst would look at those videos and use the word "clearly," like it or not it was not clear because the footages don't capture the entire genesis of the story and the footage was grainy AF.

Also look at the charges:

1. First degree reckless homicide
2. First degree recklessly endangering safety
3. First degree intentional homicide

My random two cents is that he'll be most likely be found guilty of reckless endangering safety. As for the murder, we need to remember we have to look at the found individually and he may be found guilty for the one, both, or none. Having said that, I almost guarantee you that the prosecutor would introduce his past blue lives matter and prior fighting footage background into his argument that Rittenhouse was looking for a fight.

Whatever the genesis, it is indeed clear that Kyle was running away both times from the people he eventually shot. I’m not sure how you can watch the video and say the word “clear” is out of line in describing Kyle running away. Ultimately, the Kyle running away will be the backbone of his self defense claim.

Devil's advocate: he is running away from something as much as he is running towards something. He was definitely running.

Please clarify. I’m not sure what point you’re making. Even if his intention was to run towards something, he was clearly running away from the people he eventually shot.