Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

I think there are real racial problems in law enforcement, but those pictures are just specious. If I compile pictures of white people injured by the police and post them along side pictures of armed black people apprehended without injury, are you going to suddenly agree that the police treat white people more harshly? Of course not.

[Anonymous]

I love this perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love this perspective.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle rittenhouse is gonna walk. Facts over feelz. Even in Kenosha.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/lawyer-posts-phone-message-from-kyle-rittenhouse-from-jail

From that guy? No. Dude didn’t even know what a WAP is, revealed his wife has never had one, and self-owned on Twitter. Not exactly as brilliant as he thinks he is.

Who they hell cares about some trashy song for a criminal “ rapper”. Ben Shapiro is too intelligent for that stupid stuff.

Ben Shapiro is who the hell cares, obviously, or PP couldn’t accurately cite Shapiro’s agita and moronic wannabe culture war incursion for his lack of anything to say on his platforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this perspective.

+1

+1 more, exactly right.

[Anonymous]

For those who are saying “but Rosenbaum was convicted of a sex crime when he was 18 so it doesn’t matter.” This is sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kyle will walk. Self-defense.

I think he has even less chance of this than Michael Drejka did. Their situations and their arguments are very similar. Both were vigilantes that instigated the situation and then assaulted the victims and killed them when they "became afraid for their lives".

It didn't work in Drejka's case and it will not work in Rittenhouse's case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this perspective.

+1

+1 more, exactly right.

+3
I call them “terrorists,” but “insurgents“ is just as correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who are saying “but Rosenbaum was convicted of a sex crime when he was 18 so it doesn’t matter.” This is sick.

Honestly yeah, this and the footage shows that Rosenbaum was probably an unstabled, armed person. Which is WHY there has to be zero tolerance for calls to arms by white Militias that end up with armed 17 year olds being put into this volatile situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who are saying “but Rosenbaum was convicted of a sex crime when he was 18 so it doesn’t matter.” This is sick.

Absolutely. The victim was a sick and twisted individual. But Rittenhouse didn't know that at the time he assaulted him. This man could have been Mahatma Ghandi and Rittenhouse would have treated him the same.

The point is that Rittenhouse didn't look into the background of his victims, but he indiscriminately shot his rifle at a random person he saw. He inserted himself into a violent situation, hunted down an individual who he assumed was a looter, and shot the person. Then instead of leaving, he continued to proceed further into the crime area and when people who saw him shoot the first person tried to take his gun away from him, he shot at them. In armed shooter situations, the people who try to disarm the shooters are called heroes.

The lower age limit to carry deadly weapons is 18 in both IL and WI. He was illegally carrying and using a gun. He should not have been in that situation and had he not, 2 people would not be dead and a third injured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are saying “but Rosenbaum was convicted of a sex crime when he was 18 so it doesn’t matter.” This is sick.

Honestly yeah, this and the footage shows that Rosenbaum was probably an unstabled, armed person. Which is WHY there has to be zero tolerance for calls to arms by white Militias that end up with armed 17 year olds being put into this volatile situation.

This seems very similar to what is reported of Trump. One would think you would find him disqualified to be president but you do not. So yo7 really have no principles or morals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are saying “but Rosenbaum was convicted of a sex crime when he was 18 so it doesn’t matter.” This is sick.

Absolutely. The victim was a sick and twisted individual. But Rittenhouse didn't know that at the time he assaulted him. This man could have been Mahatma Ghandi and Rittenhouse would have treated him the same.

The point is that Rittenhouse didn't look into the background of his victims, but he indiscriminately shot his rifle at a random person he saw. He inserted himself into a violent situation, hunted down an individual who he assumed was a looter, and shot the person. Then instead of leaving, he continued to proceed further into the crime area and when people who saw him shoot the first person tried to take his gun away from him, he shot at them. In armed shooter situations, the people who try to disarm the shooters are called heroes.

The lower age limit to carry deadly weapons is 18 in both IL and WI. He was illegally carrying and using a gun. He should not have been in that situation and had he not, 2 people would not be dead and a third injured.

Rittenhouse shot his rifle at a random person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who are saying “but Rosenbaum was convicted of a sex crime when he was 18 so it doesn’t matter.” This is sick.

Absolutely. The victim was a sick and twisted individual. But Rittenhouse didn't know that at the time he assaulted him. This man could have been Mahatma Ghandi and Rittenhouse would have treated him the same.

The point is that Rittenhouse didn't look into the background of his victims, but he indiscriminately shot his rifle at a random person he saw. He inserted himself into a violent situation, hunted down an individual who he assumed was a looter, and shot the person. Then instead of leaving, he continued to proceed further into the crime area and when people who saw him shoot the first person tried to take his gun away from him, he shot at them. In armed shooter situations, the people who try to disarm the shooters are called heroes.

The lower age limit to carry deadly weapons is 18 in both IL and WI. He was illegally carrying and using a gun. He should not have been in that situation and had he not, 2 people would not be dead and a third injured.

Rittenhouse shot his rifle at a random person?

Yes, Rittenhouse claims that he was there to protect and defend his friend's business. And yet, instead, he went wandering around the neighborhood and ended up in the parking lot of a different business which was not near "his friend's" business. Rittenhouse encountered Rosenbaum in a parking lot and shot him in the back, groin and hand. There has been no contention yet that Rittenhouse had any particular reason for singling Rosenbaum out or leaving his post defending his friend's business. So, if he was protecting the business, why did he abandon his post and end up in the parking lot of another business that he had no affiliation with or cause to protect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this perspective.

+1

+1 more, exactly right.

+3
I call them “terrorists,” but “insurgents“ is just as correct.

He went armed with an AR 15 to a place where he didn't live, in order to shoot people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this perspective.

+1

+1 more, exactly right.

+3
I call them “terrorists,” but “insurgents“ is just as correct.

He went armed with an AR 15 to a place where he didn't live, in order to shoot people.

Who's the good guy with a gun?