Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Wrong. Stop with the fake news. Facts don’t care about your liberal feelings.

Kyle was not in illegal possession of a gun because it was a state registered WI gun and it’s legal to open carry a long gun in WI. He went to another state that was literally 30 minutes away. Many of the rioters traveled much farther than that.

Kyle and his friends were confronted by the guy and other rioters. A little later rioters were setting a garbage can on fire to push into a police car. Kyle our the fire out. The guy who died started chasing Kyle, then threw something at him, and then continued to chase him until he was cornered. He tried to grab his gun and then shot him 4 times.

That’s self-defense. The guy who got shot was the aggressor. No matter Kyle’s intent or if he was the initial aggressor, does that mean Kyle does not have the right to defend himself if he fears he is in danger or great bodily harm or death.

Kyle started running when they started yelling at him. He was running towards police. The other people started to hit him and he shot them. He did not fire on anyone and everyone. He even hesitated to shoot the third guy, and only did when the guy lunged at him again. There was another guy close to him that had his hands up and Kyle did not shoot.




Self-defense.

I don’t get what you people can’t understand. You have the right to protect yourself. Even if Kyle was the initial aggressor, he was no longer the aggressor when he was running away both times.

All 3 victims had criminal records. One had a guy. Can’t you ask the same question what a felon was doing with a guy at a protest? Was he there to incite violence and hurt somebody?

Not self defense when you go somewhere looking for a fight with a gun.

This is on him and his horrible parents. That's right this 17 year old man boy had parents who let him take a gun to a highly charged event. This is not "self defense" This is idiots who clearly should not own guns. Gun owner and ex Republican, NO NOT SELF DEFENSE

I'm certainly not a supporter of this idiot who wanted to play Rambo, but that's not how it works.

[Anonymous]

So apparently, it looks like his lawyer has a shade financial past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Wrong. Stop with the fake news. Facts don’t care about your liberal feelings.

Kyle was not in illegal possession of a gun because it was a state registered WI gun and it’s legal to open carry a long gun in WI. He went to another state that was literally 30 minutes away. Many of the rioters traveled much farther than that.

Kyle and his friends were confronted by the guy and other rioters. A little later rioters were setting a garbage can on fire to push into a police car. Kyle our the fire out. The guy who died started chasing Kyle, then threw something at him, and then continued to chase him until he was cornered. He tried to grab his gun and then shot him 4 times.

That’s self-defense. The guy who got shot was the aggressor. No matter Kyle’s intent or if he was the initial aggressor, does that mean Kyle does not have the right to defend himself if he fears he is in danger or great bodily harm or death.

Kyle started running when they started yelling at him. He was running towards police. The other people started to hit him and he shot them. He did not fire on anyone and everyone. He even hesitated to shoot the third guy, and only did when the guy lunged at him again. There was another guy close to him that had his hands up and Kyle did not shoot.

Self-defense.

I don’t get what you people can’t understand. You have the right to protect yourself. Even if Kyle was the initial aggressor, he was no longer the aggressor when he was running away both times.

All 3 victims had criminal records. One had a guy. Can’t you ask the same question what a felon was doing with a guy at a protest? Was he there to incite violence and hurt somebody?

And you need to stop watching Sean Hannity and listening to Rush Limbaugh.

It doesn't matter that the gun was legally registered in WI and borrowed from a friend. Both Rittenhouse and that friend committed felonies. Rittenhouse was 17 years old and the legal age to carry a firearm in WI is 18 years old. So it was not legal for him to carry that gun. The person who gave him the gun committed a felony by giving him the gun to use.

When committing a felony, you cannot claim self defense.

Actually it’s 16 in WI. It wasn’t illegal and even if it was, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to defend himself.

I listen to neither of them. I listen criminal to criminal defense attorneys who know the law. Regardless if he was in illegal possession of a gun, he had the right to defend himself.

Just like if I a felon uses a gun ( illegal) to stop a home intruder, he will be going to jail for the illegal possession of a firearm, but he will not be going to jail for murder. Even though the gun is illegal, the guy is legally in his right to defended himself, and it can be claimed self-defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People lie to cops sometimes.

Have you seen the videos? He literally was on the ground being hit over the head with a skateboard when he shot one of the guys. And the other guy lunged at him with a gun.
I don't think Kyle should have even been there, with a gun no less. But if you are just looking at the shootings themselves, I think he will get off on a self-defense argument.

You can not just go start shooting people and claim self defense. Terrorists like this guy and his supporters need to be brought to justice.

First shooting was self-defense too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle was right to defend himself. God bless the USA, and the 2d Amendment.

I missed the end of the video—who won the fight, the skateboard or the rifle?

Defend himself?

He crossed state borders with a gun illegally to partake in the activity. he provoked it and killed two people. he should have been at home gaming with friends or some other normal teen activity.

Wrong. The guy was in WI. He never crossed state guns legally. Him and his friend were asked asked to be there by the owners to protect their store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle was right to defend himself. God bless the USA, and the 2d Amendment.

I missed the end of the video—who won the fight, the skateboard or the rifle?

Defend himself?

He crossed state borders with a gun illegally to partake in the activity. he provoked it and killed two people. he should have been at home gaming with friends or some other normal teen activity.

Wrong. The guy was in WI. He never crossed state guns legally. Him and his friend were asked asked to be there by the owners to protect their store.

You sure? Because the militia said after the fact something like "We didn't want him here."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle was right to defend himself. God bless the USA, and the 2d Amendment.

I missed the end of the video—who won the fight, the skateboard or the rifle?

Defend himself?

He crossed state borders with a gun illegally to partake in the activity. he provoked it and killed two people. he should have been at home gaming with friends or some other normal teen activity.

Wrong. The guy was in WI. He never crossed state guns legally. Him and his friend were asked asked to be there by the owners to protect their store.

You sure? Because the militia said after the fact something like "We didn't want him here."

They were asked. I watched multiple videos and the shooting videos multiple times. I listened to what the cameraman ( didn’t know any of them) had said. Regardless though. No one asked for the rioters to be there destroying property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kyle was right to defend himself. God bless the USA, and the 2d Amendment.

I missed the end of the video—who won the fight, the skateboard or the rifle?

Defend himself?

He crossed state borders with a gun illegally to partake in the activity. he provoked it and killed two people. he should have been at home gaming with friends or some other normal teen activity.

Wrong. The guy was in WI. He never crossed state guns legally. Him and his friend were asked asked to be there by the owners to protect their store.

You sure? Because the militia said after the fact something like "We didn't want him here."

They were asked. I watched multiple videos and the shooting videos multiple times. I listened to what the cameraman ( didn’t know any of them) had said. Regardless though. No one asked for the rioters to be there destroying property.

None of them should have been there.

[Anonymous]

T'was legally self defense; he'll get off on murder charges on that basis. Was illegally carrying a firearm; will be convicted on some or another gun charge.
ANTIFA has co-opted the BLM message for their purposes. There are Black people who support anarchy but they are few in number. Many of you have seen video of Black people trying to explain this but they get shouted down. Burning neighborhoods and businesses doesn't win victims of systemic racism much power. It plays into Trump's evil hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Wrong. Stop with the fake news. Facts don’t care about your liberal feelings.

Kyle was not in illegal possession of a gun because it was a state registered WI gun and it’s legal to open carry a long gun in WI. He went to another state that was literally 30 minutes away. Many of the rioters traveled much farther than that.

Kyle and his friends were confronted by the guy and other rioters. A little later rioters were setting a garbage can on fire to push into a police car. Kyle our the fire out. The guy who died started chasing Kyle, then threw something at him, and then continued to chase him until he was cornered. He tried to grab his gun and then shot him 4 times.

That’s self-defense. The guy who got shot was the aggressor. No matter Kyle’s intent or if he was the initial aggressor, does that mean Kyle does not have the right to defend himself if he fears he is in danger or great bodily harm or death.

Kyle started running when they started yelling at him. He was running towards police. The other people started to hit him and he shot them. He did not fire on anyone and everyone. He even hesitated to shoot the third guy, and only did when the guy lunged at him again. There was another guy close to him that had his hands up and Kyle did not shoot.

Self-defense.

I don’t get what you people can’t understand. You have the right to protect yourself. Even if Kyle was the initial aggressor, he was no longer the aggressor when he was running away both times.

All 3 victims had criminal records. One had a guy. Can’t you ask the same question what a felon was doing with a guy at a protest? Was he there to incite violence and hurt somebody?

And you need to stop watching Sean Hannity and listening to Rush Limbaugh.

It doesn't matter that the gun was legally registered in WI and borrowed from a friend. Both Rittenhouse and that friend committed felonies. Rittenhouse was 17 years old and the legal age to carry a firearm in WI is 18 years old. So it was not legal for him to carry that gun. The person who gave him the gun committed a felony by giving him the gun to use.

When committing a felony, you cannot claim self defense.

Actually it’s 16 in WI. It wasn’t illegal and even if it was, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to defend himself.

I listen to neither of them. I listen criminal to criminal defense attorneys who know the law. Regardless if he was in illegal possession of a gun, he had the right to defend himself.

Just like if I a felon uses a gun ( illegal) to stop a home intruder, he will be going to jail for the illegal possession of a firearm, but he will not be going to jail for murder. Even though the gun is illegal, the guy is legally in his right to defended himself, and it can be claimed self-defense.

Actually it's not:

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class E felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class D felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a firearm having a barrel 12 inches in length or longer and who is in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a firearm having a barrel 12 inches in length or longer to a person under 18 years of age who is in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

[Anonymous]

Interesting how many uninformed people boast their opinions.

Rittenhouse went from his job as a lifeguard to the local high school to help clean up graffiti from the BLM/Antiwhatevers, was interviewed an hour before and stated he was in support of people protesting. He was there to protect property and as an EMT, provide aid, which he did to several protestors. He shot three convicted felons all of which attacked him first, one of which was on video using racial slurs just prior. He is a hero, will be cleared, and will also win a ton of money.

Those of you condemning him are the problem with America. You would choose a felon who resisted arrest and was killed, over a young man who was already serving in community in many ways. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting how many uninformed people boast their opinions.

Rittenhouse went from his job as a lifeguard to the local high school to help clean up graffiti from the BLM/Antiwhatevers, was interviewed an hour before and stated he was in support of people protesting. He was there to protect property and as an EMT, provide aid, which he did to several protestors. He shot three convicted felons all of which attacked him first, one of which was on video using racial slurs just prior. He is a hero, will be cleared, and will also win a ton of money.

Those of you condemning him are the problem with America. You would choose a felon who resisted arrest and was killed, over a young man who was already serving in community in many ways. Pathetic.

You cannot be serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting how many uninformed people boast their opinions.

Rittenhouse went from his job as a lifeguard to the local high school to help clean up graffiti from the BLM/Antiwhatevers, was interviewed an hour before and stated he was in support of people protesting. He was there to protect property and as an EMT, provide aid, which he did to several protestors. He shot three convicted felons all of which attacked him first, one of which was on video using racial slurs just prior. He is a hero, will be cleared, and will also win a ton of money.

Those of you condemning him are the problem with America. You would choose a felon who resisted arrest and was killed, over a young man who was already serving in community in many ways. Pathetic.

You cannot be serious.

He had no way to know they were convicted felons unless he was stalking them. Then it becomes malice aforethought and would be capital murder. Trumpsters don't think too good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The first guy who died - Joseph Rosenbaum - is being touted as a sex offender with a minor. Rosenbaum was 36 and the crime took place in 2002. When Rosenbaum was 18.

I’m just adding this because I felt like this throw away talking point needs more context. Likely this was a Romeo-Juliet romance where he had sexual contact with someone close to his own age (eg, he was 18 and dating someone who was 16).

A lot of states have loosened these laws in recent years, because the charges are so damaging to young people. But in 2002, the old laws were strictly enforced and lives ruined. I’d like to have more context on this particular case.

Rosenbaum was a child rapist.

“Per documents from the Superior Court of Arizona in Pima County, the crimes for which Kyle Rittenhouse's 1st attacker, Joseph Don Rosenbaum, was imprisoned and made to register as a sex offender involved the molestation and rape of five separate boys between the ages of 9 and 11,”
- Kenosha Reporter, September 10, 2020

https://kenoshareporter.com/stories/552689330-rosenbaum-raped-five-boys-sentencing-records-reveal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The first guy who died - Joseph Rosenbaum - is being touted as a sex offender with a minor. Rosenbaum was 36 and the crime took place in 2002. When Rosenbaum was 18.

I’m just adding this because I felt like this throw away talking point needs more context. Likely this was a Romeo-Juliet romance where he had sexual contact with someone close to his own age (eg, he was 18 and dating someone who was 16).

A lot of states have loosened these laws in recent years, because the charges are so damaging to young people. But in 2002, the old laws were strictly enforced and lives ruined. I’d like to have more context on this particular case.

Rosenbaum was a child rapist.

“Per documents from the Superior Court of Arizona in Pima County, the crimes for which Kyle Rittenhouse's 1st attacker, Joseph Don Rosenbaum, was imprisoned and made to register as a sex offender involved the molestation and rape of five separate boys between the ages of 9 and 11,”
- Kenosha Reporter, September 10, 2020

https://kenoshareporter.com/stories/552689330-rosenbaum-raped-five-boys-sentencing-records-reveal

total scumbag. but all the more reason not to encourage yokels to run around with guns.