Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Jersey Girl]

I posted most of that above. Look up. :-)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[quote="Jersey Girl" post_id=1237449 time=1599452232 user_id=16]
I posted most of that above. Look up. :-)
[/quote]

Thanks. Sorry. I was busy doing in real life stuff and then went into internet sleuth mode without refreshing the thread.

- Doc

[_Temp. Admin.]

Still waiting for proof this guy was a "pedophile."

It's at: https://banned.video/watch?id=5f52bc97af4ce8069e672e5d

Fast-forward to the 4:09 mark, then pause it. You might have to click on "full screen" to read the text.

[_Jersey Girl]

I posted most of that above. Look up. :-)

Thanks. Sorry. I was busy doing in real life stuff and then went into internet sleuth mode without refreshing the thread.

- Doc

in real life? Me too. All day long. Snow coming in. :-(

[_Jersey Girl]

Still waiting for proof this guy was a "pedophile."

It's at: https://banned.video/watch?id=5f52bc97af4ce8069e672e5d

Fast-forward to the 4:09 mark, then pause it. You might have to click on "full screen" to read the text.

The guy's rap sheet has been posted twice already. We're just becoming redundant.

[_Temp. Admin.]

They were trying to disarm an active shooter. Period. You keep revising what happened in your own way that isn't what actually happened.

The mob, to include the pedophile, was clearly chasing him down prior to him firing a single shot. How can they have considered him an active shooter if he hadn't fired a single shot?

That isn't for you to decide, it is for Wisconsin State law to decide, and I already showed you the law which states self-defense doesn't apply when the actor is engaged in an unlawful act and provocation.

He wasn't provoking them. He was running away from them, which is the exact opposite of provocation.

You're completing the stereotype here, a law enforcement officer cherry picking which laws he really cares about while ignoring those he doesn't.

I wouldn't ignore it if it was indeed violated. As it stands, there was no provocation.

Are you ____ kidding me? You're using an after the fact remark based on hearsay from some anonymous internet chat room, to prove he intended to kill him from the start? You ignore the fact that this guy was armed the entire time, chased him down the street without shooting him, and could have easily shot him had he wanted to. . . The guy who was shot clearly had the drop on him, was running right behind him, could have easily shot him in the back, could have easily shot him as he tripped, could have easily shot him after he lost control of his rifle, could have easily shot him as he was shooting the skateboard guy, etc. You're ignoring all of this so you can recreate a narrative that better suits what you want to believe.

He probably didn't shoot because he was still running. He probably realized that, in such a state, he could've easily struck the other rioters behind Rittenhouse.

So, the only way he could defend property with a gun is to shoot someone, which is illegal.

It's also illegal to try to murder someone.

You don't have a legal right to kill someone just because they're bashing in someone else's window, . . .

And you also don't have the legal right to kill someone just because they're holding a gun while running away.

. . . and there is no evidence that any of the three people he shot were actively looting that night.

But there is video evidence that they were trying to kill him.

He's no hero but people who are racist ____ will idolize him nonetheless.

Wait, what? How can this be a racist thing if the shooter and all three shoot-ees had the same skin color?

They'd still be alive if he hadn't gone there. Fact.

If that's the route we're going down, then they'd still be alive if they hadn't gone there. Fact.

But there were others who were chasing him and they weren't going after any of the other two dozens armed militiamen, so this would suggest Rittenhouse did something to trigger them.

I'm guessing the "trigger" is that he made the mistake of separating himself from the other militiamen whilst trying to extinguish the fire, thus making himself an easier target for the mob.

No one tried to kill anyone prior to those shots being fired.

"No one tried to kill anyone?" Really? So we are to assume that the crimials who threw something at him, tried to disarm him, kicked him in the head, beat him with a skateboard, and drew down on him with a handgun were merely offering him tea and crumpets?

Irrelevant to the fact that he intended to "defend" property by using his gun, which means shooting people. Which means his murders were premeditated.

We don't know that. His intent was probably to act as a deterrent.

The video clearly shows people screaming and pointing at Rittenhouse, identifying HIM as the person who just killed someone. That is the reason more people were involved in trying to disarm him.

Remember, they were chasing him down prior to him firing a single shot.

No one tried to shoot Rittenhouse. You're making things up.

So the guy who was charging Rittenhouse and whose handgun, uh, hand was shot by him just happened to be holding a gun by mere dumb luck?

Anyone walking around with an assault rifle is provoking in an attempt to intimidate.

So the mob was justified in trying to kill him?

(Besides, the video clearly shows that the pedophile was provoking in an attempt to intimidate, not Rittenhouse.)

Meanwhile, the three victims you demonize as "attempted murderers" are grown adults who have never been arrested for anything close to attempted murder. But in your mind, they're the ones who had intent to kill.

As the video footage strongly indicates.

And you believe that's all he did and why he was there?

Yes. But if you have evidence that he did anything else, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Molestation of a child is a Class 2 felony and is classified as a “Dangerous Crime Against Children,” punishable by imprisonment of between 10 and 24 years for first time offenders. So if he did this with five kids, that's a minimum of 50 years, and 11 counts? He should be there for life. So why did he only serve 10?

Most likely because the judge ordered him to serve all five sentences concurrently, not consecutively.

[_Jersey Girl]

Newly released documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal. See those documents here.

Wait, WHAT?

According to this link he was charged with Sexual Conduct with a Minor.

Molestation of a child is a Class 2 felony and is classified as a “Dangerous Crime Against Children,” punishable by imprisonment of between 10 and 24 years for first time offenders. So if he did this with five kids, that's a minimum of 50 years, and 11 counts? He should be there for life. So why did he only serve 10? He obviously didn't get out early because of good behavior.

It says it right there in my post: He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal.

[_Gunnar]

From what I've learned so far from this thread, it seems that few, if any, of the parties and victims involved in this case come out smelling like a rose. The Infowars video seems to present a sympathetic defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, but what gives me a great deal of pause is the very fact that it is an Infowars video. Alex Jones and his Infowars network hardly has a stellar reputation for veracity! It is one of the most notorious, hard right, fake news and conspiracies sources.

I don't really think Kyle had any business being involved in the situation in the first place. I don't think he intended any harm, but I am still inclined to believe that, at the very least, he inadvertently made a bad situation worse.

Certainly the violence and vandalism of some of the protestors was uncalled for, and made the situation worse. They deserve to be prosecuted for that, however just the cause being protested. Nor can I believe that the police were without fault in the way they handled the Jacob Blake, or that they needed to shoot him numerous times in the back at point blank range, despite his reluctance to cooperate with them. Nor do I believe that Jacob Blake can be absolved of blame in this case. I'm sure that had he been less belligerent and less uncooperative with police, he would almost certainly not have been shot, and, probably, none of the consequent rioting, looting and killing would have occurred.

[_Some Schmo]

In your mind, was Kyle Rittenhouse justified in defending his life?

As much as any active shooter gunning down people in the streets has. I mean, the poor guy, just standing around with an illegally obtained weapon trying to off people, because his 17 year old brain has successfully tried and convicted them on the street for being there. What's the big deal?

For fu-ck's sake.

I can't believe there are people choosing to debate this. This is how fu-cking stupid this country's become.

[_Icarus]

This kid will never be prosecuted because he's white, and is being represented by a rich high powered attorney. This is going to be a classic ending in another chapter of American racism.