Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Rosenbaum raping 9 to 11 year olds isn’t national news? Aside from being convicted of raping young boys, pre-sentencing documents have this guy making two kids younger than 11 years old masturbate in front of each other. Knowing this, why would any person who was not a complete scumbag morn his death?

All of the five young people he molested have had their lives ruined forever. How does the public in general not know what a monster this guy was? It’s almost as if “news” doesn’t matter at all when it deflects from a political narrative. This whole episode makes me sick. You would think that we could get both sides to highlight what a monster this guy was. I guess politics matters above all else in this sick country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Rosenbaum raping 9 to 11 year olds isn’t national news? Aside from being convicted of raping young boys, pre-sentencing documents have this guy making two kids younger than 11 years old masturbate in front of each other. Knowing this, why would any person who was not a complete scumbag morn his death?

All of the five young people he molested have had their lives ruined forever. How does the public in general not know what a monster this guy was? It’s almost as if “news” doesn’t matter at all when it deflects from a political narrative. This whole episode makes me sick. You would think that we could get both sides to highlight what a monster this guy was. I guess politics matters above all else in this sick country.

So you really DGAF about “law and order” then. Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Rosenbaum raping 9 to 11 year olds isn’t national news? Aside from being convicted of raping young boys, pre-sentencing documents have this guy making two kids younger than 11 years old masturbate in front of each other. Knowing this, why would any person who was not a complete scumbag morn his death?

All of the five young people he molested have had their lives ruined forever. How does the public in general not know what a monster this guy was? It’s almost as if “news” doesn’t matter at all when it deflects from a political narrative. This whole episode makes me sick. You would think that we could get both sides to highlight what a monster this guy was. I guess politics matters above all else in this sick country.

So you really DGAF about “law and order” then. Gotcha.

No one said that. I just am saddened that the truth about Rittenhouse being a complete monster is going unreported on a national level because of politics. If the Trump supporter who was killed in Portland had molested five young children and had pre-sentencing documents that detailed his monstrous deeds, would it receive a similar lack of coverage? I highly doubt it.

If that Trump supporter who died in Portland did the same things as Rittenhouse I’d have same reaction. And so would most people, if the only knew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Rosenbaum raping 9 to 11 year olds isn’t national news? Aside from being convicted of raping young boys, pre-sentencing documents have this guy making two kids younger than 11 years old masturbate in front of each other. Knowing this, why would any person who was not a complete scumbag morn his death?

All of the five young people he molested have had their lives ruined forever. How does the public in general not know what a monster this guy was? It’s almost as if “news” doesn’t matter at all when it deflects from a political narrative. This whole episode makes me sick. You would think that we could get both sides to highlight what a monster this guy was. I guess politics matters above all else in this sick country.

That he was a rapist was widely reported. And also legally unconnected to what happened in Kenosha. It’s not evidence that can be introduced at trial.

[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.

So, the fact that the victims had problems with the law makes them free targets? What if the victims had been a pastor, a doctor who works for Doctors Without Borders and a church youth counselor? Would that now make his actions deplorable and make him guilty?

An underaged and violent child goes out with a rifle, deputizes himself to protect a neighborhood he doesn't live and doesn't work in and just starts to shoot at people who he thinks shouldn't be there and you think that after-the-fact discovery that 2 out of 3 of his victims having bad backgrounds makes this justifiable? He had no idea that the people involved had criminal backgrounds. He just shot because he was violent and homicidal.

You can try to cover it up and paint him as good kid, but good kids do not go out vigilante style and murder people.

[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.

So, the fact that the victims had problems with the law makes them free targets? What if the victims had been a pastor, a doctor who works for Doctors Without Borders and a church youth counselor? Would that now make his actions deplorable and make him guilty?

An underaged and violent child goes out with a rifle, deputizes himself to protect a neighborhood he doesn't live and doesn't work in and just starts to shoot at people who he thinks shouldn't be there and you think that after-the-fact discovery that 2 out of 3 of his victims having bad backgrounds makes this justifiable? He had no idea that the people involved had criminal backgrounds. He just shot because he was violent and homicidal.

You can try to cover it up and paint him as good kid, but good kids do not go out vigilante style and murder people.

Exactly.

It doesn’t matter who his victims were. The issue is the vigilante out murdering people.

[Anonymous]

A white man with a gun is an upstanding citizen gun rights community whatever.

A black man with a gun is always a thug and a threat. Always. Even when the gun is legally owned. Or plastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A white man with a gun is an upstanding citizen gun rights community whatever.

A black man with a gun is always a thug and a threat. Always. Even when the gun is legally owned. Or plastic.

Or when there is no gun.

[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.

Why do you talk out of you A when you don’t know the law. Whether or not he was committing a felony by being in possession of a gun while underage, he can still claim self-defense. A convicted felon who is in possession of an illegal gun uses it against a perpetrator when attacking him can claim self-defense. He will go to jail for possessing the illegal gun, but will not go to jail for murder, because even though he is in possession of an illegal gun, he has the right to defend himself. This is the same for Kyle.

[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.

He didn’t cross state lines with the gun and he didn’t prove the attack. Stop with the cnn stuff. You’re a fool.

[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

Yes it is self-defense. Regardless of whether Kyle was the initial aggressor ( he wasn’t) he was retreating and running away from the situation before both incidents. He was no longer the aggressor.

Look up Colin Noir on YouTube. A black lawyer who breaks in down for all you dummies.

[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.

+1. American hero.

[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?

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

Yes it is self-defense. Regardless of whether Kyle was the initial aggressor ( he wasn’t) he was retreating and running away from the situation before both incidents. He was no longer the aggressor.

Look up Colin Noir on YouTube. A black lawyer who breaks in down for all you dummies.

nope. he shot the 2nd guy who was trying to stop him from shooting into the crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Rosenbaum raping 9 to 11 year olds isn’t national news? Aside from being convicted of raping young boys, pre-sentencing documents have this guy making two kids younger than 11 years old masturbate in front of each other. Knowing this, why would any person who was not a complete scumbag morn his death?

All of the five young people he molested have had their lives ruined forever. How does the public in general not know what a monster this guy was? It’s almost as if “news” doesn’t matter at all when it deflects from a political narrative. This whole episode makes me sick. You would think that we could get both sides to highlight what a monster this guy was. I guess politics matters above all else in this sick country.

The left likes to use criminals and turn them into hero’s. Looks at George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Jacob Blake, etc. They are deemed hero’s when all were criminals. The left loves child rapists though. Half of them are in on the pizza gate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Yes it is self-defense. Regardless of whether Kyle was the initial aggressor ( he wasn’t) he was retreating and running away from the situation before both incidents. He was no longer the aggressor.

Look up Colin Noir on YouTube. A black lawyer who breaks in down for all you dummies.

nope. he shot the 2nd guy who was trying to stop him from shooting into the crowd.

No. He shot the second guy after he hit with a skateboard while he was on the ground as he was simultaneously getting hit by another guy. Then he shot a convicted felon who tried to shoot him.