Social Kyle Rittenhouse updates

Other racial justice activists speaking with TIME in response to the jury’s verdict likewise say it will not impact their advocacy. But it presents serious complications, and may well change their tactics—forcing those on the ground protesting on the defense, focused on assessing potential threats and protecting themselves as well as uplifting their cause.

In some cases, this might mean carrying a legal firearm. (An August survey from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project revealed that demonstrations involving armed individuals are “nearly six times as likely to turn violent or destructive,” when compared to those that take place without firearms.) It could also mean that more organizers are trained in de-escalation tactics. The big takeaway is that this is another reminder that activists and protesters can’t rely on the system itself to protect them.

This part is gold. Funny how "changing their tactics" makes no mention of not burning down businesses or getting violent with others.
 
It mostly stems from the belief that this kind of thing was planned and was always going to happen. A bunch of guys present with heavy artillery, someone was always going to get shot at some point.

Most of the people I'm talking to now on the left agree with the verdict and in how the liberal media coverage has been and is bad. There are a couple of dissenters arguing from an ideological perspective that I agree with in principle but can't support when discussing the verdict.

There is a new post going around Facebook where a guy claims to be a military paralegal and claims that the verdict was wrong because he says self defense claims are not legal when the person is doing something illegal, in kyles case, having the gun which nullifies his self defense claim. It all sounds believable but the he starts spewing the lies about crossing the border with the gun, that he chased down Rosenbaum, and a few others. People who don’t know better will believe this asshole and I saw three people on my friends list that posted it. I will see if I can find it
 
There is a new post going around Facebook where a guy claims to be a military paralegal and claims that the verdict was wrong because he says self defense claims are not legal when the person is doing something illegal, in kyles case, having the gun which nullifies his self defense claim. It all sounds believable but the he starts spewing the lies about crossing the border with the gun, that he chased down Rosenbaum, and a few others. People who don’t know better will believe this asshole and I saw three people on my friends list that posted it. I will see if I can find it

Ask 'em then if it's self-defense if he carried the gun legally. And why the black dude who shot the cops was acquitted last week even though he illegally had the gun he used.
 
I'm asking you to explain why he made a terrible choice. It seems like the answer is because it ended with deaths directly because of the actions of the criminals there.

I've BEEN asking over and over, and it seems like I never get a straight answer. As far as we know from the available evidence, it only ended in violence because of those criminals. So why do I keep hearing this both sides were at fault narrative, when only one side is at fault.

What I'm saying so it's crystal clear, is KR is NOT at fault. Not at all. 0% at fault. Saying he is at fault seems to imply that law abiding citizens don't have a right to defend themselves or their communities. If you're not saying that, I don't want to put words in your mouth. But what are you saying?
Because it is stupid on its face to go to a riot with an assault weapon in yout hand. He shoukd have stayed home and this is pretty basic knowing man. You have to be pretty far down the idiot scale to do what he dis and now he fucked up his whole entire life.

Maybe people that are miserable can't relate but anybody with a good life can see how reckless and stupid it was. Maybe if you have nothing to lose you can't see why it's stupid but it's so obviously is even though it was not criminal.

Also note that your criticism that I don't speak out against the rioters is dead wrong. I am not looking through partisan eyes here but I think you may be.

There are various levels of fault you need to stop thinking in black-and-white terms he is not at fault legally but he is at fault for being an idiot.
 
@Loiosh

Another perspective from Larry Knight, a military legal worker:

I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.

Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.

That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.

First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.

This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.

However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.

While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.

He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.

And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.

The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.

I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."

First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.

Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.

Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.

This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.

May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.

This has been my Ted Talk.
 
Because it is stupid on its face to go to a riot with an assault weapon in yout hand. He shoukd have stayed home and this is pretty basic knowing man. You have to be pretty far down the idiot scale to do what he dis and now he fucked up his whole entire life.

Maybe people that are miserable can't relate but anybody with a good life can see how reckless and stupid it was. Maybe if you have nothing to lose you can't see why it's stupid but it's so obviously is even though it was not criminal.

Also note that your criticism that I don't speak out against the rioters is dead wrong. I am not looking through partisan eyes here but I think you may be.

There are various levels of fault you need to stop thinking in black-and-white terms he is not at fault legally but he is at fault for being an idiot.
So you can't explain your pov but to say its obvious to everyone that isn't an idiot, a pretty clear ad hominem when you're by far in the minority with that pov. I've asked again and again for you to explain what your perspective is, and what you expect lawful citizens to do if what KR did was not appropriate. And unlike some posters in here, I don't ask people their opinion so I can find tiny elements to criticize or parse their text for typos. I ask in actual good faith but still can't get a real answer of substance.

And I think I made it pretty clear in my previous post I'm not saying you're defending the rioters. I'm saying you're taking a both sides are to blame issue as if that's the only reasonable takeaway. Anyone that doesn't agree is stupid right? Well I'm left leaning. I dont agree. Neither do most of the other left leaning posters from what I've seen in these threads. The right leaning posters don't agree with you either. So thus isn't exactly split along partisan lines.

I don't know about you, but when I feel so strongly on an issue I'm willing to say those that disagree are idiots, miserable, reckless whatever I'm more than willing to sit down and put effort into articulating why I feel that way. Because those tend to be issues I'm passionate about. I'll write an essay if someone wants to say I'm not being clear or haven't made a good faith effort to compose a logical argument. One things for sure, you'll never come out of a conversation or debate with me and say jeez, Mike sure feels strongly about that and I still don't know why because he wouldn't clarify his position.


<Fedor23>
 
Because it is stupid on its face to go to a riot with an assault weapon in yout hand. He shoukd have stayed home and this is pretty basic knowing man. You have to be pretty far down the idiot scale to do what he dis and now he fucked up his whole entire life.

Maybe people that are miserable can't relate but anybody with a good life can see how reckless and stupid it was. Maybe if you have nothing to lose you can't see why it's stupid but it's so obviously is even though it was not criminal.

Also note that your criticism that I don't speak out against the rioters is dead wrong. I am not looking through partisan eyes here but I think you may be.

There are various levels of fault you need to stop thinking in black-and-white terms he is not at fault legally but he is at fault for being an idiot.



The rioters yelling the n-word and burning down buildings should have stayed home.

Right?
 
This part is gold. Funny how "changing their tactics" makes no mention of not burning down businesses or getting violent with others.

Maybe with Kyle and the incident in Austin, they may rethink attacking people? Anqueefa hasn’t learned that lesson yet
 
The rioters yelling the n-word and burning down buildings should have stayed home.

Right?
Well they're wrong you see, but so was Kyle. For.... reasons? I don't really get it either.
 
Ask 'em then if it's self-defense if he carried the gun legally. And why the black dude who shot the cops was acquitted last week even though he illegally had the gun he used.

The person that posted this is my wife’s aunt, so I had to be delicate with her, but I explained that the post was complete garbage. You will see when you read it, but it mentions a car crash scenario that is 100% false and claims that Kyle having the gun illegally makes it IMPOSSIBLE for him to bring up self defense. Well, we all saw how well that theory worked.
 
Talking out of his ass.
{<jordan}


That guy is so full of shit and the worst part is that people believe him. I tried to gently tell my wife’s aunt why it was garbage, without being insulting. The part about the car wreck is my favorite-that is such complete and utter bullshit. The other part about carrying an illegal gun means you can’t defend yourself? Please gtfo
 
So you can't explain your pov but to say its obvious to everyone that isn't an idiot, a pretty clear ad hominem when you're by far in the minority with that pov. I've asked again and again for you to explain what your perspective is, and what you expect lawful citizens to do if what KR did was not appropriate. And unlike some posters in here, I don't ask people their opinion so I can find tiny elements to criticize or parse their text for typos. I ask in actual good faith but still can't get a real answer of substance.

And I think I made it pretty clear in my previous post I'm not saying you're defending the rioters. I'm saying you're taking a both sides are to blame issue as if that's the only reasonable takeaway. Anyone that doesn't agree is stupid right? Well I'm left leaning. I dont agree. Neither do most of the other left leaning posters from what I've seen in these threads. The right leaning posters don't agree with you either. So thus isn't exactly split along partisan lines.

I don't know about you, but when I feel so strongly on an issue I'm willing to say those that disagree are idiots, miserable, reckless whatever I'm more than willing to sit down and put effort into articulating why I feel that way. Because those tend to be issues I'm passionate about. I'll write an essay if someone wants to say I'm not being clear or haven't made a good faith effort to compose a logical argument. One things for sure, you'll never come out of a conversation or debate with me and say jeez, Mike sure feels strongly about that and I still don't know why because he wouldn't clarify his position.


<Fedor23>
I did explain. It. You just dont agree so your being a dick about it.

Agree to disagreed i guess. I dont care.
 
@Loiosh

Another perspective from Larry Knight, a military legal worker:

I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.

Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.

That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.

First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.

This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.

However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.

While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.

He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.

And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.

The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.

I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."

First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.

Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.

Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.

This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.

May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.

This has been my Ted Talk.

<{Joewithit}><{Joewithit}><{Joewithit}>

Has someone let the prosecutor know this pertinent info?
 
I did explain. It. You just dont agree so your being a dick about it.

Agree to disagreed i guess. I dont care.
You've used ad hominems multiple times but I haven't once, but I'm being a dick.


<36>
 
Yes you are being a dick and partisan.
A partisan? Lol ok this should be good. Anyone that's familiar with me around here knows I'm left leaning. I even mentioned in earlier posts that you were claiming its a partisan thing when people on the left and right almost unanimously agree here. Look at the poll results. It's weird that I'm being a dick just for asking you to explain your reasoning in detail and stop saying things like well anyone that isn't an idiot would agree with me here.

I don't see how having a firm opinion on an issue makes me a dick, but ok. Seems like you think that purely because I don't agree with you. And have pushed you to clarify your pov and actually make an argument if you're going to keep saying how wrong everyone else is.
 
A partisan? Lol ok this should be good. Anyone that's familiar with me around here knows I'm left leaning. I even mentioned in earlier posts that you were claiming its a partisan thing when people on the left and right almost unanimously agree here. Look at the poll results. It's weird that I'm being a dick just for asking you to explain your reasoning in detail and stop saying things like well anyone that isn't an idiot would agree with me here.

I don't see how having a firm opinion on an issue makes me a dick, but ok. Seems like you think that purely because I don't agree with you. And have pushed you to clarify your pov and actually make an argument if you're going to keep saying how wrong everyone else is.


You're being a dick because I have said let's agree to disagree and you can't let it go because you really need me to agree.
 
Last edited:
You're being a Dick because I have said let's agree to disagree and you can't let it go because you really need me to agree.
Lol you called me a dick in the very post you said agree to disagree. Suoer passive aggressive. Of course I responded to that. Anyway fine agree to disagree. But if you keep coming in the thread making emotional statements others will keep calling you on it. When it gets to the point of insults I'm typically done with a conversation anyway . So I won't respond to you in here anymore if thats what you want.

Not sure why you think you can say whatever in a public forum and nobody will criticize your statements, but it's whatever.
 
Back
Top