If Rittenhouse is found innocent will it set a precedent for people to go on human shooting trips?

[purplepoppy]

The case of Rittenhouse rests on one point of law, can you deliberately and unnecessarily put yourself in danger then claim self defence. If Rittenhouse is cleared then the definition of self defence changes. No longer is it about being about your only option to protect your life in an attack, you can now seek out dangerous situations and claim self defence.

A woman could dress like a slut, walk around a dodgy neighbourhood and shoot any guy who approached then claim she felt in danger.
You could go to a ghetto dressed as a kkk member screaming "I hate n***r then shoot any one who approached.
Protesters march down your street, best shoot them just to be safe.
And of course whenever there's a protest you could drive there and have a turkey shoot.

I would agree a Rittenhouse victory will be the greenlight every gun nut has dreamt of.

Updates

+1 y

Some dodgy countries with lack child protection laws are well known destinations for sex tourists. I foresee something similar for America with tourists visiting for the chance to shoot someone.

Updates

+1 y

Poppy's prediction: not guilty. Even though he left the house with full intent on finding an excuse to kill. Americas obsession with gun culture will go in his favour.

[MrOracle]

Have you even watched the trial? KR was doing his best to leave the area. All he'd done up until that point was help people and put out fires. His only surviving attacker, Gaige Grosskreutz - the guy that admitted on the stand that he intended to kill KR, also admitted that KR had not done anything prior to the first guy (the child molester who had literally just gotten released from jail an hour before, and who decided he was going to kill KR because he felt KR was on the side of the police - as in, trying NOT to let the rioters burn down businesses or leave people hurt and bleeding in the streets) attacking him. Grosskreutz also admitted that he had no knowledge of KR doing anything wrong - Grosskreutz is openly a Marxist revolutionary who wanted to burn down the city and hurt anyone who opposed the revolution, and targeted KR specifically because he was putting out fires.

If protecting your city and your friends who own businesses from rioters is somehow a bad thing, we've got some serious problems. KR shot 3 people - 2 of them were chasing him down and bringing guns to bear on him, and the other was whacking him with a skateboard (deadly weapon) and tried to take KR's rifle, which likely meant killing KR. It was a clear case of self-defense, and that's why the trial has been a complete joke. The prosecution had no case, and in fact, the prosecution's witnesses only helped to support KR's case, as did the prosecutors themselves.

The problem was never KR, the problem was the RIOTERS who were looting and burning and beating people. And if the city government wasn't completely corrupt, and the DA actually prosecuted the actual rioters instead of just releasing them with no charges, then things likely would never have escalated that far in the first place. And the media's complete bullshit, calling rioters, arsonists, and looters "mostly peaceful" as they stand in front of block after block of destroyed businesses and burning cars is not only disgraceful, it should be criminal.

[msc545]

Newsflash - you don't get to shoot people in the street and get off later because they might have been a child molester. Also, because you happen to say that people whose politics you don't like are rioters, arsonists, etc. that does not absolve Shithouse. You can spin this all you want but that kid is still a murderer.

[MrOracle]

@msc545 That true - but the fact that he was a child molester just speaks to his character. KR didn't know about the guy's past - only that he had stated, in front of dozens of witnesses - that he intended to kill KR if he saw him alone, and then chased KR down as KR was retreating from the area, trapped him, and then tried to take his rifle. Any reasonable person in that situation would believe that if Joseph Rosenbaum had gotten the rifle, that he'd have killed KR with it, as he had stated his intentions to do exactly that. That's called self defense. All of this is on video from several angles, including FBI drone surveillance.

The media would like people to believe that KR went out to hunt down BLM protesters - and because of how they frame their articles, many people still believe exactly that - but KR had threatened no one, had administered first aid to a number of people, had put out fires, and had been considered by the police to be no threat, as he'd had several interactions with them throughout the day and was not detained. When KR was himself threatened, he retreated. When a gun was fired near him, but not at him, he still did not engage or even point his rifle. It was only when Rosenbaum attacked him - after threatening him and chasing him down - that he pointed and fired.

KR is going to be acquitted because his shootings were 100% justified. He did everything he could to disengage, but his 3 attackers forced his hand. Note that not a single other person was harmed, even in that chaotic situation, and only a minimum number of rounds were fired: what it took to stop the threat and no more.

You are the one supporting criminals. None of KR's attackers had any legal justification for what they did. But clearly you don't care about that.

[msc545]

Loo, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF HE WAS A CHILD MOLESTER. ALL HE IS NOW IS MURDER VICTIM - and all you are is a person that tries to justify murder with victim blaming.

[MrOracle]

@msc545 I agree that, when it comes to the shooting, it makes no difference. The only thing that makes a difference is that he chased down and attacked Kyle, who had done absolutely nothing to him, and who was actively retreating.

[msc545]

So if it "makes no difference" why do you keep mentioning it?

[MrOracle]

@msc545 It helps explain the morals and values of Rosenbaum and why he might make such an effort to attack a young man who had done absolutely nothing bad to him or anyone else. Rosenbaum wasn't a BLM supporter or Antifa member - he was simply a criminal with a deep streak of anarchism and anti-authority - he hated cops and he hated the rules of society and he hated Kyle because he saw him as part of that. The riots were simply Rosenbaum's excuse to cause destruction and mayhem, just for the sake of harming society, and at the expense of people in the community.

The early story was that KR had gone out hunting for BLM/Antifa members and shot them, and it was implied (and in a few cases, stated outright) that the people he killed were black, and therefore he was obviously a white supremist. Rosenbaum was often painted as an innocent victim, and some still believe that, because the media has gone out of its way not to share those details in favor of details it can use to imply that KR was simply a random mass murderer - and some outlets are STILL using similar words to frame their stories.

Anyone can watch the trial, but a lot of people haven't and won't, so it's good for them to read the actual facts of the story - from the state's own witnesses - that show that the truth is not at all like the stories often seen in the media. Even far-left "Young Turk" Ana Kasparian released a video last week admitting that she was wrong about KR and the facts of the case.

[MrOracle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPsXhErQA8

[FakeName123]

Two massive PoS dead and killed in self-defense with the third PoS being a cripple for life. I call that an absolute win for humanity.

[msc545]

It explains absolutely nothing other than your biases.

[msc545]

That video could not get more unclear as to who is doing what.

[MrOracle]

@msc545 There's plenty of other footage available, and it paints a very clear picture. Most people who view it have no trouble understanding that the story the media has been telling for the last year is nothing like what actually happened.

[hahahmm]

Everybody, gun owner or not, has the right to self defense. If you choose to attack or threaten immediate harm to someone who has a gun then you're a fool. It's not their fault that you're a fool. It's similar to someone deciding to be in their car & play chicken with an 18 wheeled truck or a military tank. But even if the gun owner's weapon is concealed, they still have the right to use it and you shouldn't be threatening/attacking ANYBODY.

You may ask... why would a gun owner, "deliberately and unnecessarily put yourself in danger then claim self defence" -- You say, "unnecessarily", but you don't ask why rioters were seeking to destroy some innocent person's business. This scenario could apply to any situation where you do something to protect a second innocent person or their property. You going to pick and choose when we can do that? Nah, it's not up to you. Actually legal gun owners tend to know the law and what they can and can't do. It's more likely a legal gun owner avoids getting into the same kind of fights that somebody without a gun doesn't think is a big deal, since the gun owner knows it can become a big deal fast and they don't want the hassle. But, if you push them too far, you better have good medical insurance.

"A woman could dress like a slut, walk around a dodgy neighborhood and shoot any guy who approached then claim she felt in danger." Hmm.. are you seriously equating a guy armed with a rifle to a woman dressing like a slut? I guess to make a better comparison you could just say, "what if a slut was walking around with a rifle and guys ran at her and said they were going to rape/kill her". But then we'd see you don't really have a good argument here.

"You could go to a ghetto dressed as a kkk member screaming "I hate n***r then shoot any one who approached." -- Right, like anybody would do that. You might as well have said, "You can jump out of a plane without a parachute..."

"Protesters march down your street, best shoot them just to be safe.
And of course whenever there's a protest you could drive there and have a turkey shoot." Uh, if a bunch of protestors known to burn buildings down march towards my neighborhood, or even nearby neighborhoods that my relatives live in, I would help defend those neighborhoods. If someone is crazy enough to run against armed people they're also crazy enough to have knives, guns hidden on them & can be assumed to be dangerous. Not my problem if they're suicidal.

"I would agree a Rittenhouse victory will be the greenlight every gun nut has dreamt of." -- as opposed to the greenlight a-holes who burn down buildings get? Don't make me pick between "you" and saving my house or my in-law's house. You won't like the result.

[chrissykerdock]

never point a gun at someone even a slut in a short dress... and what do you think is going to happen if you kick someone in the head and hit with a skateboard... like a bat that too can become a deadly weapon... the media has destroyed your brain.

[hahahmm]

@chrissykerdock I guess that was directed at the question asker?

[chrissykerdock]

someone below said something about a slut getting raped because she's in a short dress and deserves it... not necessarily no one has a right to rape anybody and self defense applies more likely he'd get mace in his face

[chrissykerdock]

i don't know if you assholes watched the trial he killed 2 people 1 had a gun pointed at him... the other was hitting him in the head with a skateboard and kicking him in the head... not exactly human shooting trips... plus would you go to such an event without a gun... your all mindless savages who just listen to popular thought or media and other asshole celebreties... is everything racial? even though none of the victims were black... and was kyle supposed to accept his death for the sake of being white.

[globetrotter22]

THANK YOU. Spot on. Most of these morons who keep saying “Rittenhouse should hang” are reading headlines from the Guardián or reading tweets from dumb fuck celebrities. They are definitely not paying attention to the trial.

The trial has gone so poorly for the prosecution that the witnesses they cross examined ended up helping the defense’s case. The guy who got his bicep shot by Rittenhouse openly admitted that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse’s head prior to being shot.

[mia-culpa]

If a girl dresses "like a slut" in a bad area and a bunch of guys try to rape her, then I don't have any problem if she shoots and kills them. Nobody "just approached" him. One started a fight and grabbed his gun, the other hit him on the head with a skateboard and the other had a gun in his hand while being in an angry mob chasing him down. and one of them was a child molester so nothing lost there

[MrOracle]

"If a girl dresses "like a slut" in a bad area and a bunch of guys try to rape her, then I don't have any problem if she shoots and kills them."

Neither do I. That's self-defense. In this hypothetical, the guys initiated violence, and she shot them. Good shoot.

[Naydyonov]

Is your suggestion that it should be unlawful to enter dangerous areas?
If not, then is your suggestion that in unlawful areas it should be illegal to defend oneself?
If Rittenhouse is found innocent, it will reaffirm the right to self-defense:

Attacker 1 : threatens him prior to the attack with death and chases after him, even after having the rifle pointed at him once during the chase.
— What sane person not only starts, but continues chasing an armed person after that person points the gun at them? Clearly someone willing to die.

Attacker 2 : tries to stomp on Rittenhouse's face. Narrowly avoids being shot twice. Survives because he makes the wise decision to leave the scene.

Attacker 3 : attacks him a second time with his skateboard and tries to take his gun.
— If a skateboard isn't a weapon, ask a buddy to grab one and whack you on the head with one. This shouldn't be a problem if it isn't a dangerous object.
Next, grabbing someone's gun is an invitation to get shot. Try grabbing someone's baby out of their hands and see how pleased they'll be with you. People generally assume that if you're grabbing their baby from their hands, you're trying to kidnap it. Equally, it is a general assumption that if you've trying to take someone's gun from their hands, your intentions are probably not peaceful.

Attacker 4: is shot when he switches from a stationary position with his hands raised to a moving position with his pistol pointed at Rittenhouse.

__________________________________________
Regarding this entire situation, seeing the argument made by the left, the only conclusions that can be made based on your suggested outcome of this case are the following:
(1) In unsafe areas, individuals lose their right to self-defense.
"Why be in an unsafe area in the first place if not intending to seek violent confrontation?"
Your immobile grandmother lives in a dangerous area? Sucks, looks like you'll have to either wait for her to grow a new pair of working legs or wait until the afterlife to see her.
(2) Open-carrying in an open-carry state makes legal physical assault of the person open-carrying.
(3) When the police & city government fail to enforce law & order in an area of the city, citizens have no right to take their own initiative, except for illegal actions — no one has been disputing why illegal activity was allowed to occur in the first place.
(4) Skateboards are not deadly weapons. Therefore if you like, you can beat someone over the head with a skateboard and it'll just be regular assault, not assault with a deadly weapon.
Interesting though, because a non-serious hit by a hockey stick to the head resulted in stitches for a neighbour of mine. Tripping, falling and hitting a table leg resulted in quite heavy bleeding for a classmate of mine. But I'm sure a full-strength hit of a skateboard to the head will be nothing more than a love tap.
(5) Regardless of differences in physical ability, if you are attacked by an unarmed person who has twice stated his intention to kill you, you have no right to use an equalizing-weapon in self-defense.
You're a 15 year old girl alone at home and 3 men have broken into your home and are breaking down your bedroom door? Sucks. Can't shoot them if they're unarmed — that'd be unfair to the criminals. Best to risk rape & death for the sake of the criminals. #CriminalLivesMatter
(6) If you're under 18, you have no legal right to use any means necessary to defend yourself. Better to die a law-abiding citizen, having put down the gun you can't have due to your age, than to save yourself.
#Law>Life

[exitseven]

Where I live a local cop was hit in the head with a rock, the criminal managed to get his sidearm and shot and killed both the cop and an unarmed onlooker. In Defense 101 you never give up your gun to an attacker.

[Naydyonov]

@exitseven A perfect but unfortunate example..
No stranger will take your gun from you for your sake (ex: you are piss drunk and have threatened someone).

[WhiteSteve]

That’s pretty much the whole issue for me. Whether Rittenhouse was right or wrong or somewhere in between, the biggest takeaway I hope everyone gets from this (and sadly, I doubt they will), is that there is nothing admirable or heroic or wise about what Rittenhouse did. One thing that needs to be remembered is that basically 9-out-of-10 human beings CANNOT be trusted to make their own decisions that will be sound for both themselves and for the society humans are trying to foster. There’s unfortunately no real way to stop that, unless you want to implement hard governmental pressure, which I also don’t want…. but I REALLY don’t want John Q. Idiot walking around thinking that he can just blast away at the slightest provocation, or like you said, instigate a confrontation through deliberately provocative means and then claim he was in danger. This goes for the guy who got killed by Rittenhouse when he had a pistol. If you go running around waving guns, and you shoot someone or get shot….. it’s not that weird, lmao.

I think there needs to be a re-calibration of the standard of “my life was threatened”, because people are fucking dramatic, and in the case of some of the gun hardos, they seemingly CAN’T WAIT for an excuse to shoot someone. I’m sure that’s not everyone, but all these “fuck around and find out” clowns need their circus shut down. Having your possessions stolen or someone threatening to fistfight with you…. don’t give me “my life was in danger”, and some extreme situation of what COULD happen, but likely won’t, holy shit, man. Like I feel like we’ve left Planet Sanity when I hear that kind of reasoning.

[Dragonpurple]

Self defense isn't tied to if you go somewhere dangerous or not.

However you can't shoot someone who approaches you unless they do something threatening, I'd say hitting him with a skateboard is pretty violent and I would have shot him to.

You also do not ever grab the gun of someone, lots of people who try to defend themselves pull a gun then not wanting to actually open fire have it grabbed, turned around on them and they get shot and killed.

I'll ask you this then in your examples:

"A woman could dress like a slut, walk around a dodgy neighborhood and shoot any guy who approached then claim she felt in danger." - What is he doing to her when he approaches, is he beating her with a skateboard? is he yelling he is F!@#ing going to kill her as he approaches? if so then yeah she should be able to shoot him in self defense.

"You could go to a ghetto dressed as a kkk member screaming "I hate n***r then shoot any one who approached." - Same as above, what are people doing as they approach. They coming over to talk peacefully about it or they yelling they going to F!@#ing kill you?

Threats matter and actions matter, if Rittenhouse had not fired in self defense, he'd be dead right now.

[globetrotter22]

“Threats matter and actions matter, if Rittenhouse had not fired in self defense, he'd be dead right now.”

I am going to borrow that one. You hit it on head.

But just keep in mind the psychosis of people we are trying to reason with. These people truly believe that violent rioting is justified.

[Diodoro]

The Rittenhouse situation was all kinds of fucked from the start because various news outlets spread incorrect information prematurely that tinted the dialogue, but was later proven false.

Public perception has taken hold tho, so it's gonna suck regardless. You can either be someone who clinically looks at the facts and to the best of your ability remain dispassionate. Or you can not give af about facts and simply say a kid shot people and above all else that's criminal intent.

When the whole scenario is much more complicated. Initially when this story broke I was thinking Rittenhouse was guilty because he came with a gun as a kid who wanted to "get some" and he got some. Therefore making him liable for the shootings even if others were trying to hurt him.

That was when we believed he wasn't from the area and traveled across the country to a place he had no ties and got into a fight. When the truth is he was protecting the business of a man who knew and in the midst of a riot told people to leave, who didn't want to and mutual combat ensued. He just came out on the upside.

Enough happened to debate whether or not he is liable for something. But to act like this is murder is offbase. Multiple attackers were trying to kill him as he was defending somewhere specific

[Diodoro]

To your update:

Let them. Tourists will know what happens when you come here and murder people. It's actually worse for them if they're just visiting

[globetrotter22]

He explicitly went to the Kenosha protests to protect businesses and help people (he brought a first aide kit). There is zero evidence he went with intention of harming others but he brought a rifle for protection. There is also zero evidence he belonged to any white supremacist group despite what our hyper partisan mass media slandered him as along with our dottering senile presidents remarks. He dreamed of being a cop. If you think supporting law enforcement is the same as supporting white supremacy then you will born missing a chromosome. But that is the narrative our mass media has been pushing for last year so I am not surprised many people are drinking that kool aide.

Now should a 17 year boy illegally obtain a rifle and put him in the thick of it? Hell no. Noble intentions or not that was a bad idea.

But at the same time the convicted pedo he shot Joseph Rosenbaum also illegally had a gun. The guy chase him down while firing a gun in the air.

In every incident Rittenhouse shot his gun he was either being chased, threatened and one guy admitted on witness stand he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouses head. It’s plain as day he acted in self defense.

[globetrotter22]

From what I’ve seen anybody trying to vilify Rittenhouse is looking at the violet rioters as “victims” These people incited violence and burned down buildings. Does that mean it’s okay to directly go after them rifles? Unless they are threatening you then it’s not okay to use violence. But they sure as hell seriously threatened Rittenhouse and tried to harm him. But who is the real “bad guy”. Rittenhouse who went protect businesses vs. rioters who went to start violence and burn down buildings?

[Anonymous]

Something that some of you need to gather some FACTS yourselves. But here's shortcut for you cupcakes...

Kyle's Grandma and his Dad with whom he lived part time lived in Kenosha, 20 minutes from where he resided with his Mom part time in Illinois

The gas station where it all started and where Kyle stayed up until they started attacking him, is owned by his grandparents. They came on to his property to attack him

Kyle put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.

The Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
someone knocked Rittenhouse down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head.
Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard.
Gaige Grosskreutz, aimed his gun at Kyle first, as he admitted on the stand.
in the State of Wisconsin, it is legal for Kyle to have a gun, even at 17 (which was why the gun charge was dismissed).
Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun he wasn't supposed to have. The rightful gun owner did, as he was legally permitted to do.
Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted child rapist and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater. Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record also.

But if he was black and did exactly everything that Kyle has done. The verdict would've been the same. All charges dropped. Now let's focus on these Epstein cases now where they tried to get us distracted in first place.

Good night Americans

[normalice]

No precedent is needed. People do that in the US already. All it will really do is make far right extreemists slightly more convinced that authority is on their side. Which is either true or false and is supposed to be false in a system governed by impartial justice.

So, really, a not guilty verdict would merely be a statement that we do not have impartial justice. But we all kind of knew that already, as evidenced by the fact that police didn't immediately shoot Kyle and then later pour over his drug history as justification for shooting him, like they consitently do when they kill black teenagers. Maybe far right extreemists weren't confident (insecurity is what brings them together, after all), and this will empower them for a time, but the rest of us have heard this story before.

[notwoke]

The law is on your side if you are attacked, regardless of your politics

[normalice]

In theory, yeah. And yet the justice system tends to interpret the law a little less sympathetically when it isn't a right wing extremist on trial.

[notwoke]

I would say it's the opposite. If George Zimmerman killed a white guy it'd never have made the news

[Lliam]

Justice was already denied when the police didn't arrest and/or shoot the mother fucking terrorists who engaged in looting, vandalism and arson.
Rittenhouse was attacked for merely putting out a dumpster fire that had been started by a midget who had already been convicted of raping several children and other crimes. Then he was chased and assaulted by a mob. Oh, those poor innocent terrorists!

[normalice]

@notwoke right, because he would have been found guilty. Chrystul Kizer is a perfect example.

@Lliam yeah, that's what Lindsey Graham said, too. They should have just mowed through the 1/6 terrorists with bullets and we'd probably have a lot fewer of the butthurt far right addicts trolling the internet.

[notwoke]

NOT - a black person voted guilty, remember, or was she a racist?

[normalice]

what are you talking about?

[notwoke]

one of the Zimmerman jurors was a black female and she voted George innocent, sorry i said guilty above, my bad

[normalice]

Alright.

[hahahmm]

If the authorities let rioters loot & burn down businesses then other people will step into the power vacuum and try and make order. If you don't like that then tell liberal politicians to have the cops defend people's homes and businesses. If the rioters were smart they would go burn down the businesses & homes belonging to liberal leaders... I don't think conservatives would object. Unfortunately, I bet the police would suddenly show up in huge numbers to protect those places. Hints at there being an impartial justice system - just not in the way you were thinking.

[normalice]

Or, if businesses are not in fact being burned down but saying so gets the far right crowd riled up and murderous you should maybe tell your misleaders to have some good ideas to vote for instead of this insanely divisive grievance culture nonsense. I assure you liberals wouldn't object.

[beernbacon69]

I think that comment is a giant misstatement and overly dramatic. The kid went to protect businesses and I believe him, I did the same thing here in Denver. The difference is that I was of age and legally owned the weapons I had on me, and I think I've had quite a bit more training when I was in the military to deal with situations like that. He was 17 at the time so still legally a kid.

The biggest mistakes that Kyle made were crossing state lines and taking a weapon that he wasn't allowed to have at the time. People are allowed to defend themselves and in Kyle's case he was being attacked and defended himself. I think he should be acquitted on the more serious charges, but should face some sort of punishment for the items I mentioned.

[hahahmm]

I agree with part of what you say, but if gang member murders, rapists and rioters are getting slaps on the wrist, this guy should get zero punishment.

[beernbacon69]

@hahahmm well, since the lesser weapons charge was thrown out, I was wrong... hope that's a sign that the other charges he will be found not guilty on. I agree, the rioters got away with way too much last year and Kyle is unfortunately being tried in the media. I think the judge has done a pretty good job with this case and with the testimony and the defense showing Kyle was defending himself they should throw it all out. I hope Kyle sues the shit out of them for slander, false imprisonment and whatever else he can.

[ManHater]

Oh please girl its clear you do NOT UNDER STAND THE LAW. Blah blah blah, okay let me tell you the laws that state self defense must be a fine line and all options must be be exhausted and to flee the danger. Kyle did exactly this and yet was persued and attacked. He was hit over the head with a deadly weapon skate board and then by a gun taunting socialist revolutionary. Now you tell me if someone was waving a gun at your head would you shoot first? Stupid people talk like they know the law when they don't. He was not a crazed murderer because his show were calculated and were either 3 burst to single shot not like a mass shooting.

[Guanfei]

Except he didn't "felt in danger", he was in danger. He was literally pursued by 3 people trying to kill him, one of the having a gun and who openly admitted he wanted to kill him.
Also, those people put themselves in danger, they were rioting.
What kind of fucked up country would consider rioters as "victims"? True, Kyle shouldn't have to shoot them. The police should have shot them. But since you apparently consider criminal praiseworthy in your country, I guess letting them burn and destroy stuff for months is acceptable.

[Levin]

There is something distinctly sick in the American psyche that yanks can go around shooting people with impunity as if they're in a call of duty game.

You walk around with guns, then low and behold, when they're in your hands, you use them. Self righteous, judge jury and executioner.

If every gun toting nutjob wasn't armed to the teeth, then you might actually resolve your issues like men, use your fists or something.

[Nick473]

The problem was that it wasn't a peaceful protest. They were burning down buisnesses and running around with there own guns while the police sat back and did nothing

[Levin]

@Nick473 Life takes precedence over material items.

But yes, the problem is the vigilantism. It's the job of the police and the authorities to ensure that these kinds of things are nipped in the bud and are a credible presence against violence and criminality, so the public doesn't take matters into their own hands.

[Nick473]

Yeah i wish they kept it under control. They just follow orders tho and i dont think the democrat run citys will protect there citizens from the crowd that they are endorsing

[hahahmm]

Meanwhile in the real world, where I live almost everybody has guns. Nobody is "going around shooting people with impunity as if they're in a call of duty game." But I guarantee you that if you threaten me or my family with imminent harm I'm going to put you to sleep. That's my job as the protector of my family.

[Levin]

@hahahmm Take a chill pill, bud.

[hahahmm]

@Levin Why should, I? When I thought like you in my 20s, I got jumped by multiple violent criminals at the same time. I believed if you act passive the bad guy will pat you on the head and treat you with respect. I learned how the real world works and I'm totally willing to teach it to a-hole criminals. That's how it works. In your country (UK?) people are using knives to kill each other all the time. Why don't you worry about that.

[Levin]

@hahahmm Well, I don't think they are all the time.

I've had bad experiences, I don't let it make me bitter, twisted or afraid though.

I sympathise with your experiences though. I've had quite a few bad experiences, but fortunately nothing major.

I just try and stay in suburban or rural areas. Most people are crazy in general, but cities and urban areas are the worst for lunatics. Society breeds them to be that way.

[hahahmm]

@Levin Who says I'm afraid? If I were afraid i would depend on the cops to do the job. I know the cops are incapable of doing the job so I do it. If you break into my home I will take care of you and call somebody else to clean up the mess. It's called being a responsible member of society instead of pretending that if you call the police YOU aren't responsible for the violence they do on your behalf.

[Levin]

@hahahmm you need to stop talking about me breaking into your house. Get a grip ffs. I couldn't give a shit about you or your house.

[hahahmm]

Oh, now you want to play too dumb to ever heard of "you" being used figuratively. Then you want to emote with "ffs" like a drama queen. Honesty, responsible gun owners don't want drama queens to have guns. Too unstable to think clearly.

[angeltiny0]

Hi you know personally you know personally I watched a lot of that and I think that the bottom line it is not law for one not to want to turn over documents it is not a law to indict someone about their private business and if it is and she changed and I believe you talking about the guy that was somehow wound up involved in the White House overtake you know however if you stand or not then I believe that in that situation that one should have the right to to speak or not to speak just out being indicted to do either.

[Miristheiss]

Why do you ignore that a mob with a gun chased him down the street and knocked him down and was going after him?
Why are you dishonest?
You word it as if he just started shooting people minding their own business.
Man this world is replete with wretched liars.

[Nick473]

No its not like he was running around shooting people for fun. They ran up and had there gun pulled on him and he defended himself. there's no law that says he couldn’t be out there his intention were to help put out fires and administer first aid but the race baiters wanna say it was white supremacy

[Nick473]

Dont ignore the fact that he had reasonable assurance that his life was in immediate danger. Thats not good. Were all human. You would defend yourself too

[Avicenna]

Leftist derangement is clearly on display here. Apparently leftists think child molesters and other violent criminals are just fine if they share their politics and attack minors, who the leftists do not want to defend themselves against fellow leftists.

[RealMarek]

If you want to understand what really happened in this case, you will not find understanding by listening to journalists who were sympathetic to the rioters. The authorities failed to do their job for political reasons. I cannot see how, in those circumstances, that putting out fires, tending to the injured, defending businesses, and defending one’s life when attempting to retreat from antifa rioters is wrong.

[Twalli]

That's the problem with his claim. Was he in danger? Yes. Did he have a choice in which he could have been in a position where he was not in danger? Yes. I look. at it this way. If he acquitted I can stand in the middle of an airport runway with an antiaircraft missile and fire it at any plane approaching me. I put myself in that position, but since I have the right to defend myself I can shoot at airplanes that wouldn't threaten my life if I stayed home.

[notwoke]

no, an airport runway is not a place you have a right to be. You have the right to be on a public street and not be attacked

[Twalli]

@notwoke carrying a rife under 18? Going to a place where neither you nor any family member lives? Where you know there are riots? If he thought there was no danger to his life by bringing a rifle across state lines and entering a city where there were violent riots I'm surprised he can even form a complete sentence.

[notwoke]

it doens't matter if he thought there was danger or not, he had a right to be there. The rioters went to the same place so how do they have any more reason or right to go there as he did? I am not sure, but I don't think you need to be 18 to carry a long gun? At least you didn't when I was in High school, my shotgun was usually in the back window of my pick up truck in full view.

[Twalli]

@notwoke it varies by state

[Lliam]

It cracks me up how liberals do mental gymnastics to justify rioting, vandalism, looting, arson and violence if it's done by so-called leftists. And they 😭😭😭 if a clean cut citizen is chased and physically attacked by the terrorists for putting out an arson fire and is given no other choice than to defend himself.

Guns are for defense, not aggression. And I am SO glad that Rittenhouse was able to successfully defend himself against vicious, unprovoked attack. I celebrate the deaths and injury of his three attackers. Good job, son.

[Twalli]

@Lliam I am not condoning the rioters. And I wasn't aware that deer posed a risk to hunters

[BananaBatsy]

Eh. I think the media on both sides has made this overly political. I find the mass shooting spin to the narrative very entertaining at best. Are you aware that the guy who got his hand shot confessed to trying to kill Kyle because he thought Kyle was with the police? He had no idea that Kyle had shot another man, so his claim of "trying to stop and active shooter" is also bollocks.

Don't you think that this sets up even a worse precedent if prosecution wins? Rioters and looters will attack you and the police trying to save you?

From the video that I have seen, that got taken down from the Facebook last year showed it as a self-defense. Kyle DID NOT shoot the guy who was initially approaching to take his gun but walked back with his arms raised. So the only people who got hurt/died were the people who made physical contact with him.

[DaveToo]

If Rittenhouse is found innocent it will be a travesty of justice. What no prosecutor in the case has asked is, why the fuck he felt the need to go out with an AR 15 rifle in the middle of a protest march that had nothing to do with his life, and shoot to kill?

[msc545]

This is a consequence of play-acting and cosplay that came to life. Rittenhouse has always fancied himself a sort of cop and a medic, was obsessed with the idea of controlling others, and when this situation arose he went to great lengths to illegally obtain a rifle and also obtain a "medical kit". He then traveled a substantial distance to intervene in a situation that had nothing to do with him and proceeded to "protect" a business that he had no knowledge of and offer "medical aid" to others even though he has no medical training. In other words, he was play-acting out his fantasies. It was all probably OK until he wound up shooting several people and killing them, and shortly thereafter reality came crashing down.

Does all of this suggest to you that there is something wrong with Rittenhouse? It does to me.

[DaveToo]

@msc545 He's just another wannabe cop with no balls.

[msc545]

He had the balls to shoot 3 people - which doesn't matter really.

[msc545]

I think that GaG user Ranger is a lot like him in many ways.

[DaveToo]

@msc545 Anyone can pull the trigger the first time, in the heat of the moment. Seeing the results of your first incident makes you think twice the next time, and THAT is when you die from the hesitation.

[grega239]

But it wasn't a shooting trip. He was chased by 3 guys with weapons. The guy who got shot in the arm , admitted that kyle shot him after he pointed a gun at him.

And yess you can go to the ghetto in a kkk outfit and yell n** all you want, because being an asshole isn't illegal.

Assauting someone over it is.

[notwoke]

your argument is circular bullshit because he was attacked and none of your examples is the person attacked. He has the right to be anywhere in public and not be attacked. And yes, if you go to the ghetto you are allowed to wear your KKK garb and defend yourself if you are attacked. Being a douche doesn't give people the right to attack you

[Anonymous]

You think you're not allowed to protect yourself if you're out trying to help in a dangerous situation? That's silly. If you don't want to get shot, don't attack people who are armed. It doesn't matter where you're going, you're in a public space and have a right to a firearm, and no one has any business attacking you. That applies to a protest, if someone attacks you unprovoked, then they're in the wrong. Simple.

[Soteris]

Failing to mention that the people being shot at also has a claim for self defense and has the "Legal right" to assault Kyle in self defense.

[Lliam]

@Soteris. Who did he shoot at to justify them claiming self defense? How can you claim self defense when you are chasing and assaulting someone with intent to cause them bodily harm?

[Soteris]

@Lliam As I understand it the Rittenhouse shootings happened in two separate locations. While we could talk more about the 1st instance and how the victim could argue for self defense in that case the second instance is pretty much a group of people chasing down what they consider an active shooter.

In other words they are aware that Kyle has opened fire on people and they are trying to stop him by attacking him which is a fairly normal reaction to have. As long as Kyle is holding a rifle he is posing a very real and imminent danger to anyone around him and since they DONT have guns their only rational responses are either to run away and hope they survive or attack Kyle and hope they can stop him from killing more people.

[Opinion Owner]

@Soteris @Soteris No, they don't have a claim for self-defense. The only person who has a has a self-defense claim other than Kyle is Gaige, and *at best* that's a case of mutual self-defense induced by other people attacking Kyle. There was no indication that Kyle had any intention of shooting anyone else. No one was yelling about him being an active shooter or that he might shoot anyone else as far as we can tell. All they were yelling was "he just shot somebody" and things like "get his ass". He running away toward the cops and people who following alongside him and chasing him and he did nothing until he got attacked. And everything I said before completely applies to rosenbaum, which induced the rest of the events by attacking Kyle. Which is why this whole "changes" the meaning of self-defense thing is nonsense.

[Lliam]

@Soteris. That's retarded. First, he wasn't opening fire on people.
Second, the intention of those terrorists wasn't to stop him from killing innocent people, which he wasn't. They wanted revenge. They recognized him as not one of them and were intent on murdering him for that reason.

If a black person or a fucking liberal was being chased by Neonazis who wanted to lynch him, they caught up with him as he fled for his life, knocked him down and began assaulting him, would liberals condemn him for shooting the Nazi attackers at that point in self defense?

[Soteris]

... Are you serious? If you are pursuing an active shooter then calling things like "He just shot somebody!" and "Get his ass!" is entirely natural. This is further reinforced by people testifying saying they where of the belief that he was an active shooter and also calls from the crowd to the police to arrest Kyle because they where of the belief that he was a criminal who just killed people.

Nothing of this is strange.

[Lliam]

@Soteris. Yeah. Nothing strange at all about violent arsonists chasing someone down the street and claiming to be victims when he successfully defends himself when knocked to the ground and violently attacked.
What is it about liberals that makes them incapable of seeing who the bad guys are?
I don't imaging they would be condemning Rittenhouse if he was liberal and being attacked by neo-Nazis.

[Opinion Owner]

@Soteris If you are pursuing an active shooter then calling things like "He just shot somebody!" and "Get his ass!" is entirely natural. I think "Run!" would be more natural than "Get him!", but he wasn't an active shooter by definition, like I said he wasn't shooting at anyone else and was running toward the cops who could be seen off in the distance. That did not meet the requirements of an active shooter situation and the only person directly involved who could have had a reasonable justification for believing that was Gaige. They would have needed to be declaring that he was an active shooter or otherwise declaring that he was still dangerous (even if they were mistaken) in order to justify an attack on him, but they didn't. There was no testimony or evidence to suggest that the crowd ever did or said anything to give any indication that they felt Kyle was still dangerous, nor that he actually was an active shooter. Only Gaige has an argument to believe it because he turned his back before the shooting started.

[Opinion Owner]

First line should be in quotation.

[Soteris]

@Lliam Oh shut up already. First of all I dont give a flying fuck if you think they are terrorists or arsonists or whatever. It does not give you the right to kill them and they can still be victims of crimes. It literally changes NOTHING in regards to this case except attempts to make a pointless emotional argument void of facts and logic.

========
As for if Kyle could be classified as an "Active shooter" or not? Of course he would have been. You dont stop being an active shooter because you did not fire your gun in the last 5 seconds or move around while not shooting. Likewise you dont stop being a threat.

Lets just for arguments sake take a hypothetical scenario of a Islamic terrorist gunning down a bunch of people. He would not STOP being an active shooter because he had to run away from a crowd of people who chased him nor would he stop being a threat. That is just silly. Also since Kyle was ARMED he is basically defacto dangerous regardless of his posture since he could at any moment turn around and kill someone and there is nothing you or anyone else can reasonably do to stop him.

[Opinion Owner]

@Soteris "You dont stop being an active shooter because you did not fire your gun in the last 5 seconds or move around while not shooting."
You don't *start* being an active shooter by only shooting one person charging at you and not *demonstrating a continuing danger*. The definition of active shooter requires continuous threat or harm. He was not a threat. Again, there has been no evidence or testimony that suggests he was a threat to anyone else, except for Gaige.

"He would not STOP being an active shooter because he had to run away from a crowd of people who chased him nor would he stop being a threat. "
Unlike Kyle, the terrorist would have started being active shooter when they demonstrated continuous harm. Kyle never met the definition for active shooter. Gaige even had a verbal exchange with Kyle where Kyle says he's going to the police and that he had to shoot, at that time Gaige stated that he didn't see Kyle as a threat before he turned away to run to Rosenbaum. Nothing supports Kyle being an enduring threat.

"Also since Kyle was ARMED he is basically defacto dangerous regardless of his posture since he could at any moment turn around and kill someone and there is nothing you or anyone else can reasonably do to stop him."
That's not what dangerous means in this context. You have a right to a firearm. Kyle was legally carrying a firearm. The potential damage of you or your tools does not make you an active danger to others. He can legally strut about all day and night open carrying an AR-15 and not be considered dangerous to others. It's an unconstitutional argument and obviously total garbage.
Being armed is no justification for being attacked! Or even being considered a threat. It's a fucking constitutional right. Again, there has been zero testimony or evidence to indicate he was a threat to anyone, and no testimony or evidence that anyone even thought he was a threat to anyone up until Gaige.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm allowed to walk around in body armor, with a long gun, a sidearm, a combat knife, tell you to go fuck yourself, then defend myself from a charging psycho, and still you have no right to touch me as I have presented no danger to anyone else. Kyle could have even pointed his gun at people before he was attacked by the mob as long as he was warning people off verbally, that still would be no justification for being attacked. Your personal gun politics aside, he was totally in the right with the law. It seems like there was no disagreement here that it was self-defense by Kyle, but my point here is that there's not even been an argument to support self-defense by anyone else other than Gaige which at best falls under mutual self-defense by his own admission.

This question is just the Asker not knowing the case and so doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to her examples of what self-defense would supposedly mean if there's an acquittal.

[loveslongnails]

Exactly, and this is not the first time cases like this have presented themselves. It would be like draping yourself in $100 bills and then walking through an impoverished, well known, crime ridden neighborhood plagued by shootings while carrying a high powered automatic weapon. Then if you get approached by anyone you feel threatened by, you just shoot them. I agree Poppy, it would set a ridiculous precedent.

[darkcloud1945]

Since we are not in the courtroom and do not have all the information we can not make a judgement since most of the mainstream news outlet are only telling enought to start riots because they usually tell half the story or just plain lie to stir shit up to meet their agenda.

[CreamySeed]

Believe it or not purpleone Wisconsin is an Open carry state meaning you can show off your shiny rifle out in public assuming you can legally possess one. If Rittenhouse legally owned the gun there should not be a problem with self defense. The men that were shot were attacking.

[CreamySeed]

I know open carry is an insane concept to you lobsterbacks who have to dull their kitchen knives so Ahmad doesn't go stabby stabby 🔪

[jshm2]

You assume he will be found innocent. He won't.

But it does raise the question how far a judge can go to stifle a prosecution before he can be deemed to be interfering in the case. This judge has been a train wreck at best.

[Anonymous]

Funny how nobody brings up the fact that the guy who was shot had a loaded weapon, was a convicted child molestor, pointed the loaded weapon at someone immediately after shouting that he was going to kill him loud enough for everyone else to hear. But he didn’t vote the way you like so he’s automatically a guilty man.

[Kaneki05]

Is it self defence if I go out of my way to find a lion then shoot it when it tries to attack me, or is that hunting?
That is thy question.
Then again good Samaritan law exists which hmm... Means shoot people if helping people?
Bleh laws.

[FakeName123]

Well, unlike a lion, humans have the choice to think rationally. None of the rioters had to attack an armed person, either.

Was it potentially reckless by Rittenhouse? Potentially. But he is charged for murder. And there is not a world where this isn't self-defense.

[notwoke]

if you are in the woods you can shoot an animal that attacks you in self defense. I don't know why this is so hard, Kyle has the same right to be on that street as the others

[Kaneki05]

This was partly a joke. But I'll roll with it, Your mistaken you see, humans are nothing but just wild animals that have created a society of how to act around them yet a lot of them are still wild and reject domesticated life so when a wild human does as a wild human does it's not a surprise.

[FakeName123]

If humans aren othing but wild animals, there is no moral dilemma to be had to begin with. Then it is the right of the strongest. And in that case Rittenhouse was just better.

[Kaneki05]

@notwoke don't see what woods has to do with this? I was talking more of the desert plains of Africa lions which you would have to go out of your way to get there first.

[Kaneki05]

@FakeName123 ah but now the more domestic ones are judging the wild ones which they've included kyle as one.

[sawno]

No because it was considered self defense if he is found innocent. That does not excuse anyone ti do it on purpose.

[exitseven]

It just might since the riots during the last two summers have given permission to loot, rob and burn our cities. Rioters should put Kevlar on their Christmas list this year.

[Pterodon]

No because most people are decent law abiding citizens. You liberals think just because someone has a gun they’ll automatically go on killing sprees

[hahahmm]

But if Alec Baldwin breaks safety rules & aims a gun at a woman & pulls the trigger, killing her it's not a big deal to liberals. Just an "accident" cause by evil conservative gun manufacturers. Even when people on the movie set say that the scene they were going to shoot wasn't supposed to include aiming the gun or pulling the trigger.

[bean2k21]

See here's the thing about being an American. Our property is actually valuable enough to protect. British people don't understand this because they live in a shithole that not even Hitler wanted.

[bean2k21]

"I've always wanted to walk down a street in a small British town dressed up like a cowboy with fully loaded pistols in my holster and see how people react." - Anonymous
Should Britain relax their gun laws for American tourists? ↗

[Juxtapose]

He has the right to go wherever he wants with his legal firearm and if people don't like it then he has a right to defend himself.

He was clearly being attacked and justifiably fought back against the Antifa scum.

[loveslongnails]

Actually, that's not true. You don't the "right" to go anywhere you want with a weapon, openly visible or concealed, even with a permit, and that's defined by each state.

[Juxtapose]

@loveslongnails Hence "legal firearm" dude.

[loveslongnails]

Dude. The firearm itself can be legally possessed, but it can't be brought just anywhere if state or federal law restricts it. Dude.

[Juxtapose]

Dude bruh, duuuuude dude.

[TheBigGuy9]

You’ve looked at all perspectives of the case? That guy Gaige admitted on the stand that Kyle only shot at him AFTER he pointed his gun at him. Let me ask you.. did you do your own research on this?

[888theGreat]

It was self defense and people will need to defend themselves again and again since the Justice system lets killers, rapists , and thieves out after serving 2 weeks in prison.

[hahahmm]

True. Only someone who has never even been face to face with violent criminals would even think 911 is a solution. I got your 911 right here in my holster.

[Snakeyes7]

No because if he was to be found innocent, that would mean that he acted in self defense. The purpose of the trial was to decide if what he did was self defense or not.

[007kingifrit]

he didn't put himself in danger. and he didn't do so unnecessarily. he has a right to defend property and to care for the injured

[OnTheLevel]

If you watched the trial, it's probably the most certain case of self defense ever tried. Its even caught on video which makes it undeniable. He never should have put himself in that situation, but that doesn't take away his right to self defense.

[Soteris]

I mean.. Does it matter? Its not THAT hard to put yourself into a situation where you have a legitimate case for self defense in USA. That is sort of the whole point of the original question and has been a hotly debated topic for a very long time in USA such as with the castle doctrine or George Zimmerman or any number of other cases dating back literally hundreds of years.

The fact that I can very reliably put myself into a situation where I can legally choose to "defend myself" using lethal force is the problem here. In other words, it becomes a simple legal loophole for premeditated murder.

[OnTheLevel]

That's pretty fast- fetched for someone to put themselves in a situation where theor life is in danger so they can shoot someone. He was kicked in the head, hit in the head with a skateboard and had a pistol pointed at his head.

[Red_Arrow]

He illegally transported a gun across state lines as a minor. So having the weapon in the first place was a crime and self defense becomes pretty hard to prove.

[OnTheLevel]

A person still needs to demonstrate that they were in danger of great bodily harm to use self-defense as a defense. A person merely approahing you as suggested by the original poster wouldn't meet that standard.

[OnTheLevel]

@Red_Arrow He did not transport a gun across state lines. The gun was a friend's gun that was already in Wisconsin when he acquired it. Merely possessing a gun illegally does not make you guilty of homicide. He should have been charged with illegal possession if that was his crime.

[Soteris]

How it applies to the case is again not that important to the question. As long as I could claim that I feared for my life I could use this as an excuse to kill someone. This is one example, George Zimmerman is another.

Fundamentally speaking you dont have to be in any ACTUAL danger as long as you could make up the excuse that you ASSUMED you where such as saying you believed the other person had a gun in their clothes even if they did not (and you knew beforehand that they did not). Its very hard to disprove a claim that you felt threatened or that you believed that the other person posed a great danger to you or that you believed they where armed.

[Red_Arrow]

Earlier reports stated his mother brought the weapon across state lines for him as a minor. Currently, his friend Dominick Black testified that he bought the gun. He stated that they discussed knowing it was illegal for him to do that and that Kyle would not get the gun till he was 18. But we can see that he did in fact have the gun at 17 and used it in the killings. The possesion alone does not makes him guilty of homicide, but combined with the videos and other eveidence of him carrying and using that weapon, it can be shown that he had the intent of using the weapon illegally to kill people. Hence, homicide.

[OnTheLevel]

@Red_Arrow That's not even in the same universe as what's required for a homicide conviction. An equally compelling reason to carry a firearm is for self protection. Mere possession does not indicate a homicidal intent.

[OnTheLevel]

@Soteris That's why we have a jury decide if a person was justifiable in their use of self defense. Simply saying "I felt threatened" isn't sufficient cause to use deadly force.

[Soteris]

Two other pieces of information is that there is a video of Kyle saying that he want to get a gun and kill the "looters" around 2ish weeks before the incidents and also that he brought his gun across state lines to, in his mind, protect businesses which he was not asked to do. In other words he very deliberately put himself into this situation with his gun against these people and with a prior motive of wanting to shoot people like them.

[Red_Arrow]

Him carrying a weapon into a chaotic siuation was bad enough. Knowing it was illegal for him to have it shows criminality in him doing so. Combined with other facts (he came there from out of state to participate in some form and carried a weapon that he knew he should not have) can show intent to shoot people. And it is up to a jury to decide.

[OnTheLevel]

@Soteris He didn't bring the gun across state lines. The gun was already in Wisconsin when he obtained it. Regardless of his stupidity of putting himself in the situation he was in and the statements he made, those things aren't illegal. If he was there to kill looters, why did he wait until late in the evening to start? Why didn't he conceal himself to avoid being detected while killing people? Why was he running away from the people he ended up killing? Your whole scenario of his intent just makes no common sense.

[OnTheLevel]

Think about some of the basic actions a person would take if he were intending to shoot people. He would keep quiet about where he was going. He would conceal his identity by using a false name. He would disguise his appearance to avoid being identified (especially in a time where gave coverings are not only accepted, but encouraged). He would seek a position to conceal the act to avoid getting caught. Kyle Rittenhouse took none of these actions. It just doesn't add up that he went there with an intent to kill someone.

[Soteris]

If you where trying to kill people then maybe you would do those things although reality shows us that humans are rarely that calculating. However, if you are trying to use self defense as your excuse for murder then that put things on its head. If you start to try hide your identity then that works against you in court. It undermines your excuse that you where just there as an innocent bystander caught in a dangerous situation and instead exposes your intent to murder.

If you want to kill someone with the excuse of self defense then you want to openly admit your identity and speed your way to trial as soon as possible. After all, you already prepared your basic defense and claim for innocence and you want to give the police and prosecutors as little time as possible to dig up whatever actual evidence might exist that may or may not expose your secret intentions.

[OnTheLevel]

You really think Kyle Rittenhouse was that calculating and strategic in his thinking?

[Soteris]

To a point, yes. That said if we are going with the argument that he intended to kill people then I dont think he thought this through which is probably why he got chased down and partially beaten up. Basically he could have planned to get into a position to kill one or two people but he did not expect people to hunt him down that aggressively or actually be able to hurt him.

Would explain everything from why he was there, to what he was doing and how he acted.

That said, I once again have to point out that this is about setting a precedent for future cases and how easy it would be for someone who IS calculating to use the precedents set by Rittenhouse to get away with murder.

[Wester1967]

Yes. That's exactly what Nazis want.

[joesheks]

Brionna Taylor and her boyfriend were straight up drug dealing criminals.. but why bother actually reading the police file? The media tells you what you need to know lol

[Anonymous]

Yeah, probably but that's a good thing with the overpopulation that is plaguing the planet
When will the local butchers start selling human meat is my question

[exitseven]

no thank you.

[Opinion Owner]

A few years ago it was horse so why not human

[exitseven]

I am not a fan of cannibalism.

[Opinion Owner]

I just see it as a means to an end, waste not want not and all that

[hahahmm]

The problem with human meat is there's tons of diseases a human could have that you can VERY easily catch. Would suck to get a STD from your breakfast.

[Opinion Owner]

They fill cattle with drugs so do the same with humans set for the pot

[misstripleem]

He was not there to shoot anyone. They came after him.

[legalboxers]

Of course! The FAR RIGHT would do any means necessary to cause as much fuckery

[QuietRunner]

People go an human shooting trips now

Also that isn't what he did

[msc545]

Rittenhouse will be found not guilty if the Judge has his way.

[Seangreen]

No people already kill people in self-defense almost daily. His case just caught media attention

[Nick473]

It’s because he's white and he was trying to clean up the mess that blm created, by burning down buisnesses and hurting people. The leftist dont like it when the light shines in dark places so they made him a target for white supremacy. Which is plainly just racism against whites

[Seangreen]

@Nick473 dude don't make everything about left wing or right wing because it's the same predatory bird

[Nick473]

They both suck. Im just saying how it is lol

[Old_Golden]

Should I be surprised everyone supporting the murderer is a guy over 40?

[hahahmm]

Yeah, because older people tend to have experienced the pros & cons of being nice to criminal azzholes so we have zero patience for it. Pro tip: don't try to riot in a neighborhood full of 40+ year-olds. You ain't going to like the outcome.

[OddBeMe]

Maybe. I hope, he’s at least sentenced to weapons charges and does time. With a felony on his record. Prosecutors seemed to fck this up.

[hahahmm]

And what do you hope happens to rioters who loot & burn down businesses owned by innocent people just trying to feed their families?

[OddBeMe]

@hahahmm prison for law breakers. Not death.

[hahahmm]

Better move to a country where there's no tradition of shooting people for felonies then.

[OddBeMe]

You’re not wrong. US still lives in cowboy movies.

[hahahmm]

Sort of. Except cowboy movies are a fantasy representation where usually the bad guy gives you some kind of fair shot/respect. In reality it's dirty street fighting.

[OddBeMe]

@hahahmm actually reality it’s a Law and Order episode. Even during the so called Wild West days.

[hahahmm]

Not sure what you mean...

[OddBeMe]

@hahahmm I'm saying we think life is a western movie when actually its a Law and Order episode.

[Still-alive]

Defense is currently asking for a mistrial at 14 hours of jury deliberations and the judge might grant it :o

[hahahmm]

Oh, well it's too bad the police detective I once tried to give clues about violent criminals don't agree with you or they would have done their jobs instead of trying to get me to do it for them. Those criminals went on to murder some elderly people too and I have given them to the cops on a silver platter if only detectives actually investigated like on tv.

[OddBeMe]

@hahahmm yeah, I had some expensive shit stolen and it’s being ignored. Too bad cops are more concerned with BLM and Proud Boys rioting.

[Quigly]

Rittenhouse will be found innocent cause it was obvious self defense.

[Jamie05rhs]

So if a woman goes out after dark then she's putting herself in danger?

[Jamie05rhs]

Oh, nvm. You already said that.

[SmokinAces2000]

Yeah people are already encouraging minors to go out and shoot people so this isn’t too far fetched

[BrosephBrostar]

Sounds like you're quite fact-adverse.

[ShaTTeredMasterpeace]

It's George Zimmerman all over again.

[globetrotter22]

How so?

[jimmy2]

He should have stayed home

[joeldalton]

The precedent for self-defense is centuries old.

[Morgador]

He was being chased by a mob, it was self defense!

[Anonymous]

That is exactly what a lot of right-wingers want.

[globetrotter22]

I want the truth. If you actually paid attention to the trial you might of learned a thing or two about really happened.

[Nick473]

Right cnn, msnbc etc are only shaping it and sharing the parts that support there view and hiding the rest of it. Its disgusting

[Nick473]

And there view is the same, white people are bad, guns are bad. Basicaly saying white people should die and withold self defense so blacks can be “more” equal.

[globetrotter22]

@Nick473 and notice it was TURNED into a racial issue deposit there being zero evidence Rittenhouse was racially motivated to go to Kenosha.

[Nick473]

Exactly. It just to show how desperate they are to politicize everything. They are basically trying to get votes from the missinformed at this point

[Pete671]

Yes hope so, be like a permanent The Purge lol,,,

[Andres77]

Cops go into harms way every day.

[Andres77]

Kyle's the only guy on the right and in the right that killed anyone last year.
www.forbes.com/.../?sh=4647089b4de4

[Andres77]

Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester. On the state's sex offender registry.

I find it odd that so many people on GaG that are victims of childhood sexual abuse are suddenly calling a convicted child molester a martyr when a child finally shot that vile pos in the face.
Rosenbaum was encouraging the mob to chase Kyle down and kill him.
Kyle had a history of doing community service, rendering first aid and putting out fires, rosenbaum had a history of molesting kids.
Now rosenbaum is dead, just like a lot of GaGers have agreed to regarding child molesters.🤨

[WhiteSteve]

My argument here is that Kyle Rittenhouse had no idea of that dude’s history, it’s not like he went child molester hunting. That guy could’ve just as easily been a great guy, or even more likely, just a random neutral asshole. I don’t take participation in a riot over a cause you’re passionate about as “bad”, that’s usually just relative to whether or not you support said cause or not. So you can’t just go into a riot looking to shoot people or even frighten them with arms if you’re a civilian, unless your name is on the deed of a building, and even in that case…. it’s just not that serious. That’s what business insurance is for. If I got shot defending my business and, say, ended up in a wheelchair for life, I would regret that decision and blame myself for being stupid and risking my body over an object, much more than I would blame the shooter. I should’ve let my business burn down, collected the check, and either start again or get another job working at an established business. We act like business owners affected can never make a dollar again for the rest of their lives, lmfao, that’s dramatic.

[Andres77]

@WhiteSteve
Why do the looters and arsonists get a free pass?
Are you so stupid to believe that setting a business on fire might not spread to a residence and put innocent lives at risk?
It DOESN'T MATTER if Kyle knew rosenbaums history... he was inciting the mob to attack a boy and his hands were inches away from a running Kyle when Kyle finally turned around.
He's dead, exactly as he should be.
Fuq him and anyone that defends that vile POS.
Kyle didn't go looking to cause trouble but to minimize damage to the community.
Throughout the riots there were many instances of mobs blocking traffic so ambulances and firefighters could not reach victims and fires.
So volunteers decided to help.
None of the looting and rioting and arson should have been allowed.
Businesses have insurance so let criminals do what they want?
What an ass-wipe.
Damages equal higher insurance costs which might lead business owners (and employers for the community) to close things down when they can no longer afford the costs.
Then local employees lose jobs.
It's a snowball effect when you let criminals decide how a community should be managed.
You're so ignorant you should be embarrassed.

[Paris13]

Cause riots then. xx

[grega239]

Yea , that totally won't backfire or have you fired at

[Paris13]

@grega239 The judge will Tell you. xxoo

[Grubhub]

White privilege and power is alive and well

[chrissykerdock]

if the lazy blacks didn't loot and burn down buildings this wouldn't of happend

[Grubhub]

Show me that hatred. I love to see you angry

[chrissykerdock]

i've been on my knees for black men and it seemed they were mostly interested in humiliating me

[Grubhub]

You shouldn’t let politics bother you. I try to ignore political things

[chrissykerdock]

i don't like the political games and i feel it's manipulation

[Grubhub]

I wouldn’t humiliate you. I would be your friend. You’ve hung out with the wrong black men

[chrissykerdock]

only 1 did the others were gentlemen

[Grubhub]

Okay than white stereotype all black men to humiliate you?

[chrissykerdock]

well i felt bad about being on my knees for you when you call me a white supremeist

[Grubhub]

And? White power and supremacy isn’t a good thing

[chrissykerdock]

not if i'm willing to be on my knees for black men you can't call me that

[Grubhub]

You never been on your knees for me, and I never called you that in particular

[chrissykerdock]

no not you but i have been for black men

[Grubhub]

Do you regret ever getting on your knees for the black man?

[chrissykerdock]

not really it was a learning experience and i kind of knew he was a dominant beforehand

[Grubhub]

Did he give you a facial?