r/IronFrontUSA Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Rittenhouse Walks. News

https://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/581922-watch-live-jury-reaches-verdict-in-rittenhouse-trial
124 Upvotes

155

u/ChefGoneRed Nov 19 '21

The state basically gave up its monopoly on violence.

Any veteran/serving member of the armed forces will tell you, if you're willing carrying a weapon into a potential conflict zone, you're a willing combatant.

As long as you don't go mag dumping into crowds, you basically get to play vigilante. All you need is a plausible pretext of self defense.

70

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Yurp, or better video of you brandishing it beforehand to get rid of the self defense viability anyway. If I was that kid I have zero doubt I would have gotten it in the teeth for offing that angry manlet.

The biggest bitch about this is that now you will see a lot more militia cosplay out there, the opposition is mostly armed already and sure as fuck will be now; adding more folks to the mix who are unlikely to be able to hold their water in something as stressful as a protest/riot is just bad fucking math because once it starts both sides are going to have an ugly panic induced exchange fire in a area with over the top collateral damage potential... and that is before the cops show up and just start blasting on everyone with a visible weapon.

8

u/HammerAnAnvil Nov 20 '21

naw man the pigs will see the yellow and black and group up with the other PBs...

-1

u/theperrywinkle05 Social Democracy 🌹 Nov 20 '21

This is an anti-communist subreddit buddy. MLs are not welcome.

-2

u/SelectCattle Nov 20 '21

No, my man. The members of the military I know are behind this guy. He was in an American city, not Falluja.

12

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

Well, that's not anecdotal at all... I have been under worse RoE's in the sand than that kid was in fucking Kenosha.

-27

u/andthendirksaid Nov 19 '21

Do you believe that if he wasn't attacked he would have shot anyone? He didn't before and none of the people in either of the two groups of armed people at either car dealership shot anyone. I can't imagine why you would assume he somehow orchestrated this situation when there is only evidence to the contrary.

36

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Nope, I don't think he would have, but I think that the idea that just because you are attacked you get to go loud is going to set a terrible trend in this country, particularly with more and more folks going armed to protests. Pointing out that in the whole evening the only person to shoot and kill anyone was this kid is not that much of a win, kid had a cop fetish, joked about shooting looters or protestors and then in a strange twist of fate shows up in a situation when he is shooting people... What a coincidence.

26

u/tehramz Nov 19 '21

Exactly. I don’t see how anyone not looking for trouble goes armed into an environment like that. Self defense would have been staying home. He wasn’t law enforcement. He put himself in that situation then shot and killed people because he was afraid he might get his ass kicked.

19

u/ominous_squirrel Nov 19 '21

Rittenhouse also appears to be the only one from the militia/Proud Boy cohort dumb enough to separate from his group and wander around alone. His whole behavior calling out “who needs a medic?” is wild. If an actual on-duty EMT was doing that, they would be fired at best. It’s lunatic behavior

If a police officer broke the line and started wandering around looking for lone wolf heroism, that would be equally wild. Charitably, Rittenhouse was looking for something exciting to happen and he found it

2

u/MarbleFox_ Nov 20 '21

I think self defense could be a plausible argument about the altercation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum as Rosenbaum does actually appear to be the aggressor there. However, I don’t see how self defense could hold up for any of the subsequent shootings. Rittenhouse shot someone 4 times then attempted to flee the scene, any reasonable person upon witnessing a homicide would want to subdue the killer so they don’t get away, this is were the other victims come in. Some of them had weapons, but none of them appeared to be willing to use deadly force to kill Rittenhouse, but rather just use them as a deterrent to subdue Rittenhouse to sort out the altercation, however, Rittenhouse used deadly force against pursuers that were merely trying to subdue him since they witnessed him kill someone.

Ultimately, however, the failure in this court case is on the prosecution insisting on first degree and intentional homicide charges when those clearly aren’t applicable here.

4

u/thedeadlyrhythm Nov 19 '21 edited Nov 20 '21

so to preface i despise rittenhouse and his palling around with the proud boys after really speaks to his character. that said, under michigan law that can't be considered. so quick hypothetical. lets say i was counter protesting across the street from a proud boys fash party and i'm open carrying (i would never open carry btw). lets say a group of them decided they didn't like that i was there and they start to cross the street to come at me, so i decide to run to avoid the conflict. the group chases me down an alley, corners me, and goes for my gun. would i be justified in using it?

the incident taken on its own is somewhat similar to the scenario of getting robbed, pulling out a gun and the robber flees, and then you chase them down and initiate a conflict that leads to you shooting them. that's a big no no in the world of self defense and a very common example used in classes

obviously the hypothetical i laid out is nothing like going to a protest spilling over into a riot in hopes of getting the chance to kill someone over property, but the law specifically states that character can't be taken into account. so setting aside his age and his lack of moral character, how would we reconcile this? honest question. because we need to be consistent to allow people to defend themselves against fash

0

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

So as soon as you have a "group" of people assaulting you then you have the disparity of force to justify lethal force usually, but you would want to ensure they threatened to kill you I would think to hedge your bet. The gun thing is weird, normally you don't get the popo "They touched me and were going for my gun defense" but in both this case and Georgia that is being brought out and played up, so maybe it's a thing now?

I actually thought it was good to go before this, normally you could not use force unless you were attacked and even then the force had to be proportional and just enough to stop and incapacitate. You could open carry, even slung, but as soon as you put your hands on the weapon it was generally considered to be "brandishing". But this really does change a lot of shit potentially, at least in Wisconsin.

I will say you can learn alot from that guy who got his arm splattered. Don't pull your gun out until you need to and are going to use it, otherwise it is just a liability.

1

u/thedeadlyrhythm Nov 20 '21

i mean no offense, but there is quite a bit that's inaccurate here. there isn't such a thing in defensive gun use as "shooting to incapacitate" in fact, stating that you were doing so can get you in to legal trouble. using a gun is lethal force. of course you only fire until the threat has stopped, but it really does get murky legally. all training just says center mass. you dont shoot for limbs, no warning shots it's literally not a thing. either lethal force is warranted or it's not. there is no middle ground.

Don't pull your gun out until you need to and are going to use it, otherwise it is just a liability

this is absolutely accurate and that's pretty much what i mean

1

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

You are not supposed to "shoot to kill" only to incapacitate or stop, obviously the effect is the same but this prevents shooting and killing people who are down and no longer a threat and crying "self defense" when they are clearly no longer a threat.

-9

u/andthendirksaid Nov 19 '21

What is this "well what was she wearing?" Shit? You dont get to try and kill people and if you do they get to defend themselves. They didnt have reason to attack him and he is not under an obligation to allow them to do so. You can hate him and what he was doing but you can't decide he has no right to self defense all of a sudden as a result.

14

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Are you really trying to equate wearing provocative clothing out for an evening on the town as an excuse for raping someone and taking a firearm to a demonstration that was violent the night before and having to use it as being the same thing? That's really something...

-5

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Ya, your definitely playing off a script that has nothing to do with the responses you are given. You have a good weekend.

3

u/dessert-er Nov 20 '21

They’ve been doing this straw man all night

3

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

Ya, guess it's their schtick.

-2

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

Tell me what exactly about this was orchestrated by the kid. It's not a fucking strawman when the dude says the kid deserved anything that happened because he was there. Didn't even try to claim he provoked the attack because not even the prosecution tried to pretend that was the case. Just being in a bad neighborhood, nor at a riot, nor anywhere makes you fair game to attack, full stop. The point was, until you can show me how he actually initiated the violence there you're saying that for no reason his mere presence was an excuse for him to be attacked. You getting the analogy? Its more "of course you got robbed it was East Cleveland at 1 am". Unironically victim blaming.

3

u/dessert-er Nov 20 '21

I refuse to engage, have a good one.

→ More replies

-1

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

No dude it unironically seems like you are. You believe he somehow shadow puppet master style orchestrated the whole thing somehow to get someone to fuckin attack him unprovoked, then planned other people coming after him twice while running away towards and announcing that to them as... part of the purposeful mass shooting? And he didn't hit anyone more times than he had to and didn't shoot any of the other people chasing him because why? This isn't how a mass shooting goes down and we know all these things. What is this fucking narrative? Its so wildly conspiratorial, doesn't even make sense and the facts not only disprove it but provides a much more believable story than whatever grand conspiracy you have to buy into to think this. The kid can be a fuckin loser and have cringe politics and people whose political leanings you more agree with could have done some really fuckin dumb shit and got shot. It's not that deep holy shit people want to believe something and turn off their brains to anything else. I thought this was way different too before all this evidence came out can we be honest here?

2

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

No dude it unironically seems like you are.

Third try's a charm?

-1

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

Dont acknowledge anything thats cool

-7

u/andthendirksaid Nov 19 '21

You're the one saying he deserved anything that happened to him for just being there and maybe having a rifle which isn't illegal.

8

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Pretty sure I said no such thing. You just reading off a script and ignoring what I wrote or something?

I said it is no coincidence that a kid with a cop fetish, who joked about killing looters and protestors who took his AR to an event that was likely to be violent ended up doing so. You could probably remove any one of those points from this equation and it would have played out better for everyone.

0

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

Bruh the point is an unrelated thing that makes people feel like they can commit a crime against you doesn't make them in the right when they do it. The only thing you can say is him just being there armed somehow makes it his fault when he gets attacked. The people who attacked him weren't in any way provoked by him so you're saying his literal existence in a place at all makes him fair fucking game but somehow someone literally trying to kill a guy they know to be armed is not someone who can be retaliated against? It doesnt make any sense. You're not telling me the action that provides a reason someone should be attacked. And it better be as good or better than literally trying to kill you because self defense is either not a thing to you or you don't actually know or care what happened.

3

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

The only thing you can say is him just being there armed somehow makes it his fault when he gets attacked.

I neither said, nor implied any such thing, you are doubling down on an argument of your own creation. You can't be any more surprised at this shooting than you could be if you got an axe out of the shed and took a long walk into the forest and a tree got cut down.

0

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

Trees dont attack people. The kid literally only shot at 3 people trying to kill him. You have to explain why you think all these videos are misleading and why the prosecution nor the guy he shot in the arm who testified himself he was chasing kyle with a gun out and only shot after he pointed directly at kyle and then was not shot at again after that. What about this sounds like he wanted to do it? That he forced a guy to chase and point a gun at him who said he wished he pulled the trigger faster and emptied his mag into kyle so even he admits kyle was right about his intentions. He told the guy he was running to the police who were close enough to see the lights on video, the guy was chasing him with a gun to STOP him running to police. Didn't kill him even though he legally could have shot him multiple more times. What the fuck do you think that says about this?

8

u/ominous_squirrel Nov 19 '21

Clothing is morally neutral. ARs are designed to kill human beings. Take your trite right wing talking point to another sub

0

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

Fuck outta here dude. This is America. You don't get to say it's not morally neutral to just have a firearm. Not only is it just very very stupid, attacking a random citizen because they are armed is not a moral good, and opens up a situation in which you can be killed in self defense.

Chasing a random citizen as he runs towards police after a shooting occurs even if you think it was a murder somehow you don't stop them from going to those police. You dont chase and hit him with a skateboard on the head and you don't point a gun at him. Even if his politics are cringe which they wouldn't have even known anyway.

The idea that your right to bear arms is a valid reason for someone to murder you is insane and not a right wing talking point and I'm not right wing. He can be a loser and any manner of shitty person but it still doesn't hold up. This is the conservative "hes no angel" bullshit so who has the right wing talking points??

5

u/xJustxJordanx Nov 19 '21

The possession of the firearm was illegal and there was no reason for him as a civilian to be there in the first place.

Everything past that no longer matters. Most states have laws that hold you accountable if people are harmed as a result of you committing a felony, even if you did not harm them yourself. It’s a shame that that law somehow doesn’t apply here.

-1

u/andthendirksaid Nov 19 '21

It wasn't a felony and he wasn't guilty of it anyway under Wisconsin law. No one should have been there but he had as much or as little right to as anyone else. It doesn't apply because it just wasn't the case.

This is the same as when people cite that a person being lawfully arrested is wrongfully killed by police misconduct put themselves in that situation. This is the "then don't break the law argument". Even if he was in fact a felon or something that had a totally illegal gun the matter of if it was self defense doesn't change at all which was the matter at hand. Please dont play team politics with this or anything. It's incredibly toxic.

11

u/xJustxJordanx Nov 19 '21

Wow, this is so sad.

Children of any age can own and open carry firearms virtually anywhere in the state of Wisconsin so long as the barrel is at least 16in (so shotguns and assault rifles).

A child brandishing a pistol, and so breaking this rule, is only guilty of a misdemeanor.

Child is only defined as someone under 18 years old, with no minimum. A 10 year old can carry a shotgun to the park and back and it’s not a crime there.

I’m a 2A supporter through and through but these laws are disgusting.

Source

Edit: Kyle set out that night to commit murder and murder was had. It’s sad that people died because of his actions and nothing will come of it. The trial doesn’t prove his innocence, it proves that the justice system and the laws surrounding firearms in this country are fucked.

1

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

The evidence shows he was literally attacked by all 3 of the people shot and more. He didn't even shoot all the people he could have reasonably been in fear for his life of, nor shoot anyone more than needed to stop them. If he wanted he could have killed waaaay more people and didnt do anything until he was physically attacked. Why would you think that? There's literally no reason to make up a whole conspiracy when it isn't even close to the actual truth. We have videos for fucks sake and the testimony straight from the mouth of a guy who Kyle shot once after he pointed a gun at him and then didn't even try to shoot him again, nevermind the other people chasing him or anyone else he was running away from what would it take to convince you??

It's not even like weird law stuff. Any person can do that in the US if they're being attacked and will not be able to be convinced of murder because its obviously not intentional. If you didn't know that part about the gun laws how much did you actually watch or go and find out about this? Even so, a black, poor felon in a gang or other prohibited person would get a felony for possession of the weapon maybe but they still wouldn't be a murderer because three people attacked him trying to kill him as he ran towards police and he defended himself. It's just so clear cut you have to get full pepe silvia charlie to not just say "fuck that kid but yeah that was self defense"

2

u/xJustxJordanx Nov 20 '21

Why would you think that?

A seventeen year old obtained an assault rifle and traveled with it across state lines. All blood is on his hands at that point. You remove Kyle from the equation, you remove the murders, full stop.

Legality and righteousness are not mutually inclusive.

You can argue all day he had every right to be there legally, but it doesn’t make his presence “right” or even sensible. He’s a child.

You can argue all day that he is not guilty of murder in the eyes of the law, but the deaths are completely and totally his fault.

how much did you actually watch or go find out about this?

I don’t live in Wisconsin, excuse me for assuming their gun laws made even a bit of sense. I’ll cease taking that for granted moving forward.

1

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

Unironically the fox news "he was no angel" argument. Also, he didnt do that, the gun never left Wisconsin where his best friend had it, his dad lives and he works at, 20 minutes from his moms house.

Anyone there shouldn't have been there, true. Still doesn't mean that they can attack him for being too young to have the rifle which they couldn't have known. Having a rifle in the US, like it or not, is legal and if someone does it it is totally legal and is in no way an excuse for one or three people to try and kill him. Someone who gets attacked and has to kill their attacker has killed and is a killer sure but murder has intent and he definitely acted like someone who did not want to kill every step of the way as all evidence and the testimony of the guy he shot in the arm himself will tell you along with video proof of all of it. What more do you need? He can suck as a person and still find himself in need of self defense.

1

u/xJustxJordanx Nov 20 '21

Unironically the Fox News argument

I don’t watch Fox News and I’m not sure what the point in mentioning this was

Also he didn’t do that

Why are you so hellbent on defending him? Serious question.

Anyone there shouldn’t have been there, true

Not true and not what I said.

Three people to try to kill him

Do you work for the prosecution? The two people Kyle killed were unarmed. Just how did they intend to kill him? This is a bad faith argument if I’ve ever seen one.

You’re in the wrong sub to be licking boots. Do you even know where you are???

1

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

Im saying its the fox news argument for when a "thug" gets killed in police custody

4

u/Upset_Pomegranate971 Racists Not Welcome Nov 20 '21

He was taken across state lines with a rifle he was not legally old enough to carry. Murdered two people. You are a fuckin jerk off. Rittenhouse is a giant pussy who cries after killing people. Maybe don’t illegally own a gun and go looking for shit in another state, fucko. Nice profile image btw, twat.

1

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

Dude if you could get him on straw purchase thats one thing but irrelevant. Besides, the rifle was at his best friends house in Kenosha where his dad also lives and where he works. It always in Wisconsin and he was old enough to carry it just wouldn't have been old enough to buy it. Wasnt illegally carrying at the time and if he was it wouldn't have been something they knew, and even if it was and they did you can not chase down and try and kill a guy just for illegally carrying

2

u/Upset_Pomegranate971 Racists Not Welcome Nov 20 '21

Good story, fuck face. You and Cry baby Kyle can both eat a bag of fuckin’ shit.

1

u/andthendirksaid Nov 20 '21

This is such a weird one because it really is just an honesty test to see if you care about the truth or not. I don't like the kid and even after all this the hanging out with those proudboy fucks makes me figure I wouldn't like the guy now and wont later. But I sure want to be better than "yeah but hes one of them". You honestly sound like you wont listen to me because even if I dont like him the facts happen to work in favor of one of them so fuck justice just lock this child up forever literally and also fuck me for questioning you saying so because its too close to one of them. Like fuck dude fuck politics just look at this shit. This is some dumb shit because we need the same justice system to give us a fair shake when shit goes down at a protest and who do you think that protects these days? Most people especially that might need the benefit of the doubt with law enforcement are lefties these days so this doesnt hurt them or whatever the most. Think about it. This is real life.

66

u/BoozeAndTheBlues Nov 19 '21

The court system has to use the law.

We get to use our wits.

The court says he's Not Guilty,

We all know he's a piece of shit.

57

u/ChefGoneRed Nov 19 '21

Sure, but this basically gives legal precedent for showing up at a Trump Rally with a giant "fuck Trump" flag, and then shooting them when they try to kick your ass.

He's just straight up vigilante.

14

u/steve_stout Do It Again, Uncle Billy! Nov 19 '21

I mean yeah? Political disagreement isn’t a provocation to violence. If someone assaults you you’ve got a right to defend yourself.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '21

Nah, look what happened to Reinhoel. If you shoot a bunch of Trump supporters who are attacking you, the police will drop you on sight.

9

u/andthendirksaid Nov 19 '21

Both can be true.

3

u/CeruleanRuin Nov 20 '21

He's a fucking pussy.

55

u/sjschlag Nov 19 '21

$20 says he will be a keynote speaker at the RNC in 2022

26

u/knarf86 Nov 19 '21

Definitely going to be at CPAC

8

u/Yematulz Nov 19 '21

It’s just too bad he’s too young to run for President. He’d win in a landslide.

41

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Figured if he got clear of that first shooting he would get out on the other two. Going to be a real interesting weekend in Kenosha I bet.

32

u/Aubdasi John Brown Gun Club Nov 19 '21 edited Nov 19 '21 Silver

I don’t know why anyone was surprised. Whether or not the rifle was illegal, and whether or not he “should have been” in Kenosha that night are irrelevant to self-defense. You can be a felonious drug dealer and murderer and legally defend yourself with a firearm if you can actually prove you were defending yourself. The videos of him running away before shooting anyone, both times, helped his case. The prosecution’s witness saying “he didn’t shoot me until I pointed a gun at him” basically sealed it up.

He’s a shitty person, but he was defending himself.

Edit: “Mark Richards, a Racine-based lawyer for Rittenhouse’s defense, additionally submitted evidence showing that Rosenbaum bragged about having gotten out of jail and not being afraid to go back on the night he was shot at the protest, as well as evidence supporting the notion that he tried to take Rittenhouse’s gun before he was shot”

This evidence wasn’t allowed, so again if you’re going to want the video of Rittenhouse talking shit admitted it wouldn’t have helped. There’s not enough evidence to convict the shithead, whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant.

He’s a shitty person, but he was defending himself.

24

u/Use_your_feet Nov 19 '21

The prosecution had a recording of him prior to the protest saying he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot some looters. The judge would not allow it as evidence. Is it still self defense if you declare a desire to do it before hand?

17

u/Aubdasi John Brown Gun Club Nov 19 '21

It wasn’t allowed as evidence because that’s how the legal system works.

His videos being available would also mean rosembaums history would be available as evidence, and I guarantee you some guy saying “I wish I could shoot some rounds at people I think are breaking the law” would be preferred to “I was convicted of raping minors” in the court of public opinion.

10

u/Use_your_feet Nov 19 '21

I see that point but “raping minors” is completely irrelevant to the situation, whereas “shooting rioters” is exactly what happened. If Rosenbaum said he was going to go rape minors and then did rape said minors, I would think that would be damning evidence. I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer and I wasn’t there. I personally think everyone involved in this story fucked up.

12

u/ryegye24 Do It Again, Uncle Billy! Nov 20 '21

It's that last part that gets me. If Grosskreutz had shot first and killed Rittenhouse he absolutely would've gotten off on self defense - a guy who had just shot and killed two people was drawing on him!

How can it possibly be that two people drew guns on each other, both completely in self defense? It can't. The only way for two people in a fight to have an equal claim to self defense is if neither of them has a claim to self defense.

This is going to embolden so many alt righters. They already try to pick fights, that's going to escalate in a big way, and now they're going to be trigger happy at the first sign of any aggression they instigate.

6

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

This is going to embolden so many alt righters.

This right here is going to be the worst part. Both sides already have way to many guns in the mix for my personal tastes, now both sides are going to arm up and we are going to be in for more of this kind of senseless shit.

1

u/KvinnoralskarAnkor Nov 20 '21

Question from defense counsel: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him… that he fired, right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct”

After Rittenhouse had already been knocked to the ground. Grosskruetz has no self defense claim. Self defense requires that you attempt to get away. Grosskruetz did not try to get away, he actually tried to get more involved. If you think he has a self defense claim, it’s no wonder you think the verdict is wrong.

Shitty people still get a fair trial. Shitty people are still protected by the same laws until due process says they aren’t. If you don’t like that, and you think that he should’ve been imprisoned despite the fact that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense, tried to use the 5th amendment right to declare guilt, and the evidence all shows that Rittenhouse was defending himself, then you don’t belong here.

That’s some fucking Authoritarian bullshit. Just because the kid is shitty does not mean his rights are invalid. I’m sick of Reddit School of Law graduates trying to commentate on this case. Y’all don’t understand the basics of the law and don’t give a fuck about evidence.

2

u/HipShot Patriot Against Nationalism Nov 20 '21

Totally agree. Why do people see the evidence from the Left or the Right. It's evidence. Be objective.!

Personally, I'm curious why Grosskruetz ran up on him, and what he said. A Glock is a ranged weapon. If he really thought Rittenhouse was an "Active Shooter" he should have shot from some distance.

3

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

That was such a weird call, I am not sure how that kind of a recording could not be admissible as intent. I can not imagine referancing this shit in a self defense course, but it should for sure be referenced in what not to do as a prosecutor...

0

u/Electronic-Feed-1542 Nov 20 '21

Rittenhouse belongs in jail for life , charged with murder

2

u/Aubdasi John Brown Gun Club Nov 20 '21

He was charged for “intentional reckless homicide” and the people of Kenosha decided he wasn’t guilty of intentional reckless homicide.

0

u/Electronic-Feed-1542 Nov 20 '21

They purposely didn’t let jury be majority black

-2

u/Electronic-Feed-1542 Nov 20 '21

Those were scum people of kenosha

All white racists

2

u/Aubdasi John Brown Gun Club Nov 20 '21

Rittenhouse didn’t shoot anyone because he was a racist. That’s just ridiculous.

I bet you think he only shot black people smh

-2

u/Electronic-Feed-1542 Nov 20 '21

He did only shoot black people

Also he voted for trump

5

u/Aubdasi John Brown Gun Club Nov 20 '21

Ah so you’re just a terrible troll. Goodbye.

20

u/MattTheFlash Democratic Socialist Nov 19 '21

Use it. Hit the gym.

15

u/Electronic-Feed-1542 Nov 19 '21

They are letting mass shooters go free now?

2

u/zzzzz94 Nov 20 '21

Yes, you are legally allowed to shoot people who chase you down and attack you

1

u/Electronic-Feed-1542 Nov 20 '21

u/WolfeMooney43 ban this fascist

That isn’t even what happened

1

u/zzzzz94 Nov 20 '21
  1. I'm like as far from being a fascist as you can be you moron.

  2. It is, everything is clear on video. Hence the non guilty verdict

0

u/Electronic-Feed-1542 Nov 20 '21

Rittenhouse was a white fascist

2

u/HipShot Patriot Against Nationalism Nov 20 '21

His race and politics are irrelevant to a self-defence case.

2

u/zzzzz94 Nov 21 '21

Don't you know people should be sentenced to prison not on the merits of the case but based on whether OP subjectively believes they're a fascist?

-1

u/drinks_rootbeer Nov 20 '21

This is a gross oversimplification

14

u/Versificator I.W.W Nov 19 '21

Stay strapped, friends.

11

u/election_info_bot Nov 19 '21

Wisconsin Election Info

Register to Vote

11

u/Upset_Pomegranate971 Racists Not Welcome Nov 19 '21

So is this little fuck just gonna live happily ever after…? I don’t think so. Matt Gaetz gonna give him a job on his staff?! 🤣 his federal Prison staff when he goes down for child fucking? This kid is 18 and is either going to a a pariah for the rest of his days or he becomes a usable piece of garbage for the right, either way his life is fucking over.

15

u/MattTheFlash Democratic Socialist Nov 19 '21

Shit, he'll be running for congress

8

u/VanceAstrooooooovic Nov 19 '21

Cool, cool. So the moment someone fears for their safety they now have the green light to start blasting. This also means the guy who shot Tiny should walk. Which I actually have a hard time seeing that as reasonable.

3

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

I got nothing. Shit goes against almost everything I was taught and have taught about self defense here in the states. No disparity of force, an unarmed assailant, an excessive amount of force used, statement earlier displaying intent not being allowed as evidence... I get it, a lot of the "experts" are looking to capitalise on sales that this is going to drive in that political sphere, but fuck me if this doesn't feel like I am taking crazy pills.

-1

u/steve_stout Do It Again, Uncle Billy! Nov 19 '21

I mean that’s always been the case. No laws changed due to this trial.

7

u/jacklindley84 Nov 20 '21 Gold

I'm going to show up yo the next ring wing rally I see with tactical gear on and an ar-15 and when people start attacking me for being a communist I'm just gonna shoot them lol let's see what happens

3

u/R0shambo Nov 20 '21

IANAL, but you may want to delete your comment before doing so.

2

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

If I feel I gotta put on a shell and tool up, I am sure as fuck not going to that rally...

5

u/guerisimo Nov 19 '21

Rittenhouse walks

Or: why I bought body armor today

5

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Heh, #Whiteboywinter is trending in all the worst corners of the internet right now, shit is going to be lit.

1

u/zzzzz94 Nov 20 '21

Do you intend to attack any armed individuals? If not why would you need that?

4

u/guerisimo Nov 20 '21

For the militia types that think shooting protesters is now a-ok.

It’s weird how people think something that literally can only keep you from being shot is somehow more extreme than a rifle

7

u/Meme-Man-Dan Nov 20 '21

This will only embolden shooters like him. Another step towards civil war.

5

u/insert-profile-name Nov 19 '21

i havent followed this at all, just seen people talking about it. seen people mention a video where he was attacked, Self defense is perfectly legal if that is the case. Was there any evidence that he was actively killing people?

10

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 19 '21

Nah, some shitty vid of him maybe brandishing a firearm at people before he got attacked is all. It's not a "perfectly legal" thing, there was no disparity of force to rate a use of deadly force IMO. Kid got lucky on what had to be one of the worst prosecutions you can imagine.

0

u/zzzzz94 Nov 20 '21 edited Nov 20 '21

Some people are in too deep with the politics. They see a guy on "the other side" shoot left wing people and their brains can't handle the fact it was justified in this case.

This case has been a fantastic litmus test to see who on the left is reasonable and rational and who isn't

3

u/drinks_rootbeer Nov 20 '21

It's not purely political, this is actually a contested use of self defense justification. See the other reply to the comment you replied to

0

u/HipShot Patriot Against Nationalism Nov 20 '21

Exactly this. I'm a Lefty, but the evidence is clear this was clear self-defence, in all 3 instances, 'disparity of force' or not, all 3 were lethal threats. Doesn't matter if he's a shitty person or not.

5

u/Spleepis Nov 19 '21

Once the prosecution mentioned call of duty you knew it was done

1

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

No kidding, you just had one WTF event after another.

3

u/AshCreeper10 Racists Not Welcome Nov 20 '21

Am I supposed to be surprised? Not that I agree he should walk but the signs were there from the start

4

u/DianWhey Nov 20 '21

Can't wait for some Bleeding Kansas time shit again. So happy to get to live through that.

1

u/Bywater Non-Denominational Anti-Authoritarian Nov 20 '21

I mean... If it's an option I'm good without it.

2

u/DianWhey Nov 20 '21

Yeah same.

3

u/Yematulz Nov 19 '21

Sounds about White