Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

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

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

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

Not for purposes of determining his legal right to self defense.

If he randomly walked up to a protestor and shot a protestor without reason in the head I wouldn’t argue that the protestor lost his rights just because he was violating curfew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

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

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

he had absolute no right to be there. he did not live in that town, he drove there on purpose with an AR15. there was a curfew so he was out illegally. he had not right to be there at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultiamtely, a 17 year old kid who lives in another state and is affiliated with white supremicists groups decided it would be fun to go to Wisconsin with an assault rifle to a protest over the shooting of a black man. What exactly did he think was going to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

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

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

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

Not for purposes of determining his legal right to self defense.

If he randomly walked up to a protestor and shot a protestor without reason in the head I wouldn’t argue that the protestor lost his rights just because he was violating curfew.

EVEN THE GUY WHO ORGANIZED THE MILITIA EVENT THIS MURDERER WENT TO SAID HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE

Stop defending him - unless your aim is just to divide, in which case, keep going

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not really. He was from another state and was violating the local curfew. He specifically went there to provoke and cause trouble. I see no reason why you and people like you are trying to rationalize this. It is frankly, really sick.

[Anonymous]

Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth said someone called in to the station asking if he would deputize citizens to patrol the city amid recent protests to which he said, "hell no."

Did they really think he'd say yes? So many crazy people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White man, who murdered white people seconds before, walks down the street with gun in his hand. Armored car drives right by him?

The police are cowards.

The police are racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth said someone called in to the station asking if he would deputize citizens to patrol the city amid recent protests to which he said, "hell no."

Did they really think he'd say yes? So many crazy people.

There’s a large group of white, armed, conservative men who have been licking their chops for this moment where they get to “patrol” the people who live in cities. We are in the precipice right now.

The WI Governor needs to get ahold of this situation because it’s gonna get messy. I’d tell him to close the WI border for a few days to keep outside agitators out of the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did he have a legal right to be there walking around with an AR15? Serious question, I don't know gun laws.

I know cops wouldn't have been able to tell his age just by passing him, but it's horrifying to me that I live in a country where a kid who knows he can't vote or buy cigarettes think he's in his right to brandish an assault rifle and "defend" whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It was a Molotov cocktail. It was clearly on fire. Poorly designed or not, it was clearly a Molotov cocktail that was lit and thrown at the shooter who was clearly running away and (to my knowledge) had not yet fired a shot. He also didn’t fire until it appeared he was trapped. Based on the video, he has a colorable claim to self defense.

In the video with two shooting victims, he was almost 100% certainly acting in self defense.

He shouldn’t of been there, he shouldn’t have been carrying, but he will have a strong self-defense claim at trial (if it even gets that far). I would like to know what the prosecutor is thinking here.

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

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

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

Not for purposes of determining his legal right to self defense.

If he randomly walked up to a protestor and shot a protestor without reason in the head I wouldn’t argue that the protestor lost his rights just because he was violating curfew.

If was violating the curfew, he had no legal right to be there. He can still argue self defense, but by your own logic, it weakens his case.

[Anonymous]

So an IL cop illegally gives his minor son an AR-15 and drives him across state lines to take part in a militia gathering where said minor son illegally possesses, illegally open carries and illegally murders someone. Then potentially illegally kills two more. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth said someone called in to the station asking if he would deputize citizens to patrol the city amid recent protests to which he said, "hell no."

Did they really think he'd say yes? So many crazy people.

He might have said no, but there are videos clearly showing the cops on the scene being a-ok with the militia being there and encouraging them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rittenhouse deserves a lengthy sentence. He is a monster.

1. It’s three seconds from where the first person throws the incendiary device (it was clearly more than just garbage, garbage on fire doesn’t fly that far) to when the guy is shot. Not only , but that the guy continued to chase shooter who was clearly retreating and posed no threat (shooter hadn’t fired yet). You can argue escalation of force there, but I’m telling you that defense counsel loves the position they are in on the first shooting.

2. Witnesses don’t have a right to pursue and disarm by any means necessary someone who is retreating. Especially once shooter was on the ground. Skateboard victim was not in retreat. His momentum was carrying him in a direction after missing the shooter. The sound seems to indicate he was shot at point blank range and he *collapses* 12-15 feet away. But he was shot at point blank range.

I could see room for some disagreement here, but not even acknowledging that he has a colorable case of self defense suggests bias to me. People will see what they want to see (including me), but my guess is that defense counsel would love to have this case.

[Anonymous]

good gd pp. the klan meeting is next door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth said someone called in to the station asking if he would deputize citizens to patrol the city amid recent protests to which he said, "hell no."

Did they really think he'd say yes? So many crazy people.

There’s a large group of white, armed, conservative men who have been licking their chops for this moment where they get to “patrol” the people who live in cities. We are in the precipice right now.

The WI Governor needs to get ahold of this situation because it’s gonna get messy. I’d tell him to close the WI border for a few days to keep outside agitators out of the state.

That’s who the Federal thugs should throw into a van a drive away. Armed militia men are a threat to law and order!