ADVERTISEMENT

EVERY VIDEO OF KYLE RITTENHOUSE (KENOSHA SHOOTING)

First of all the kid was in illegal possession of a firearm. Second Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state. The shooter may very well had threatened people beforehand. To go Illegally armed to a protest/riot is reckless if not premeditated. We’ll have to see what his social media history looks like.
.

Wisconsin law on self defense. He is going to walk.
 
The harshest punishment should be reserved for the little douche’s neglectful/abusive parents. From the videos of him, he’s clearly swimming in the “slow” lane of the gene pool.
Yeah because of all of the videos we have seen over the last month a guy defending his livelihood is the ultimate douche. Did you watch the old white guy get laid out while trying to put out the fire in his buisness? H
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHN2013
Sad situation all around. First off, this kid should have never been there but since he was he was obviously attacked and some Antifa thug threw a Molotov cocktail at him which led to some deaths. Watching these videos, I would be hard pressed to put this kid in jail even tho he made a horrible choice going there. I’m sure he has seen what happens to people online by these group of anarchists and he was afraid for his life. Looks like self defense to me
 
peaceful? what the hell? the first guy he shot threw a molotov cocktail at him while the shooter was running away from him. What the hell are you reading sir?

The protestors immediately around him were trying to disarm him. He knew exactly what he was looking for when he put himself in the middle of that protest with an assault weapon.
 
He is not going to have any problem showing he was in danger. Whats going to get sketchy is if he has the right to defend that property. If he works there or has a family member who owns it he is golden. This dude is about to get the best lawyers the NRA can buy though.

Interesting choice of words, but hardly surprising coming from you. To suggest he is 'golden' if he or a family member owns a property to justify murder....disgusting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnBasedow
Interesting reply.

Are you stating that you support throwing molotov cocktails at people?

Or kicking them in the head?

Or hitting a person laying on the ground with a skateboard in the head?

Who is the vile and disgusting person here?

clearly the person that is trying to justify murder
 
  • Like
Reactions: FSUTribe76
Sad situation all around. First off, this kid should have never been there but since he was he was obviously attacked and some Antifa thug threw a Molotov cocktail at him which led to some deaths. Watching these videos, I would be hard pressed to put this kid in jail even tho he made a horrible choice going there. I’m sure he has seen what happens to people online by these group of anarchists and he was afraid for his life. Looks like self defense to me
Watch the op from 220 to 250. I may be wrong but I think he was defending his workplace. That isnt the best excuse for HIM to be there but thats enough for a lawyer.
 
Did I see that correctly? After the initial shooting happened, the armored police vehicles roll in right past a young white male clearly carrying an ar15 or whatever and they just drive right past him?
Besides people there to protect neighborhoods and businesses with guns, some "protesters" had guns as well.
 
I don't know the law in Wisconsin but if you are being violently attacked i'm pretty sure you have the right to fight back.
Didn’t this kid show up at a place he has no connection to armed and looking for trouble? I honestly haven’t followed this story much at all, so don’t know, but this sure doesn’t seem to have any elements that would involve the castle doctrine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy McGill
Watch the op from 220 to 250. I may be wrong but I think he was defending his workplace. That isnt the best excuse for HIM to be there but thats enough for a lawyer.
I mean say if he was that still doesn’t take away from how shitty his parents are. No teen should be there with an AR. He went there looking for what he wanted and unfortunately he got it
 
Interesting choice of words, but hardly surprising coming from you. To suggest he is 'golden' if he or a family member owns a property to justify murder....disgusting.

Something somthing your a bvttfvck for continuing to condone people destroying peoples livelihoods under the veil of police injustice. It wasn't murder, that isnt even what he is being charged with, it was defending one's life.
 
The protestors immediately around him were trying to disarm him. He knew exactly what he was looking for when he put himself in the middle of that protest with an assault weapon.

Protesters? The protest was over and they were told by police to disperse and told it was an unlawful assembly. No longer protesters.

And "trying to disarm him" .... is that what you call a kick in the face?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhoenixHawk5.0
Didn’t this kid show up at a place he has no connection to armed and looking for trouble? I honestly haven’t followed this story much at all, so don’t know, but this sure doesn’t seem to have any elements that would involve the castle doctrine.
Watch minute 220-250 of the op video. I think I know what I hear but I could be wrong.
 
You cannot provoke a fight and then claim self defense.
.

Wisconsin law on self defense. He is going to walk.
From your link :
The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so.

The Case at Hand

A court recently clarified this new rule in a recent case. A man was in his home when his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend and another man broke in. They began beating the man, breaking his nose and several ribs. While they were in his house, the man shot both of the intruders in the legs. The intruders fled, and the man kept shooting from his doorway as they ran down the street. The court found that the Castle Doctrine did not protect the man from criminal charges in relation to the shots fired once his assailants had left the house. After the attackers are no longer on the property, the doctrine does not apply. The court found the man guilty of second-degree reckless endangerment for firing the shots at the two fleeing men.

Firstly the accused was breaking the law. Second he was not in his home, vehicle or place of business.
 
Neat the odds in the situation right there that a Black man or should we say kid in this instance would have been allowed to pass?

Not sure. Not sure how cops had been handling people with guns when they noticed them that night.

I mean, you can play the same game -- and lots of people have -- with the unarmed shooting of black men. You know, the George Floyd incident. Would that really have happened if he were white?

But then you do the research and you find analogs for the same thing happening to white people. And you look at the statistics and it's supported. Apparently, yes.

And so... I question your assumption quite a bit. I'm not sure you really have anything there.
 
clearly the person that is trying to justify murder

you-keep-using-that-word-meme.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
Besides people there to protect neighborhoods and businesses with guns, some "protesters" had guns as well.
But prior to that, there hadn't been any shots fired. Once shots were fired the cops roll on, anyone armed should be taken down for everyone's safety until they can figure out what happened.
 
.

Wisconsin law on self defense.

He’s got at least 2 problems I think:

Illegal possession of the weapon;

“and that the 3rd person’s property the person is protecting ... is a merchant and the actor is the merchant’s employee or agent.”

Couple quick online articles say he doesn’t work at the dealership, but rather joined an armed group that asked the Sheriff to deputize them and the Sheriff refused.

Articles say he works as a lifeguard at the Y.
 
But prior to that, there hadn't been any shots fired. Once shots were fired the cops roll on, anyone armed should be taken down for everyone's safety until they can figure out what happened.

Those units had interacted with the individuals protecting businesses earlier in the night. They knew he was not an arsonist/rioter/looter like the antifa in the area. watch the videos.
 
Odds they let a black man in same situation there do the same? Mine are zero.
Odds are they did...Are you aware the protesters had firearms?
Armed BLM Rioters Surround Police Vehicle, Shout Orders at Cops – WATCH
 
You cannot provoke a fight and then claim self defense.

From your link :
The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so.

The Case at Hand

A court recently clarified this new rule in a recent case. A man was in his home when his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend and another man broke in. They began beating the man, breaking his nose and several ribs. While they were in his house, the man shot both of the intruders in the legs. The intruders fled, and the man kept shooting from his doorway as they ran down the street. The court found that the Castle Doctrine did not protect the man from criminal charges in relation to the shots fired once his assailants had left the house. After the attackers are no longer on the property, the doctrine does not apply. The court found the man guilty of second-degree reckless endangerment for firing the shots at the two fleeing men.

Firstly the accused was breaking the law. Second he was not in his home, vehicle or place of business.


I dont think so man, it had already been declared a riot by the police, and the first guy was shot on what i think is his employers property. Im not a lawyer.
 
Odds are they did...Are you aware the protesters had firearms?
Armed BLM Rioters Surround Police Vehicle, Shout Orders at Cops – WATCH
Yes I'm sure if 1 of them were on their own armed like this pos it would have been entirely the same.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT