Current Events > People are celebrating the way the Rittenhouse trial is going.

(+) Yeah! (+)

It reminds me of when OJ was found not guilty. Except this trial is still going and all throughout Twitter theyre acting like its pretty much over already with a not guilty verdict. Its disgusting how excited & happy they are that a murderer may get away with it.

Heres one gem
https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298

Oh and the defense is trying to make that gunshot victim testifying look bad by saying he has a financial interest in there being a guilty verdict because hell somehow collect 10 million dollars.

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457765260069322756?s=21

---

Its really weird how theyre going to bat for this guy. I mean I know why, but it still makes them look weird. Didnt the shop owners in the area testify against him, saying they didnt want his help defending their storefronts?

---

They don't think he's a murderer. How do you not understand this?

Also, I know at least Rekieta Law and Viva Frei are lawyers, though Frei is Canadian, so maybe they know more about what they're talking about than you.

And even if not, what's wrong with lawyers talking about high profile law cases the same way a football fan might talk about a shocking goal?

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

They don't think he's a murderer. How do you not understand this?

Also, I know at least Rekieta Law and Viva Frei are lawyers, though Frei is Canadian, so maybe they know more about what they're talking about than you.

The trial isnt trying to decide if he was Jeffrey Dahmer or not. Its if him murdering two people was justified. It doesnt matter if anyone thinks hes a murderer or not. Murder happened. We know that already. Was the murder justified?

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

The trial isnt trying to decide if he was Jeffrey Dahmer or not. Its if him murdering two people was justified. It doesnt matter if anyone thinks hes a murderer or not. Murder happened. We know that already. Was the murder justified?

I have no clue what point you're making. It's all semantics, but generally speaking, if something is self-defense, it would not be a murder.

---

Rekieta Law is the same guy that convinced Vic Mignonga to file a defamation lawsuit in the state with the hardest SLAPP law. Total moron and when he's on your side of a legal issue you should be sweating.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I have no clue what point you're making. It's all semantics, but generally speaking, if something is self-defense, it would not be a murder.

I was responding to you saying how do you not understand this.we understand that they dont think hes a murderer. Thats not what the trial is about tho. It is all semantics. Two people were murdered. He is the one who did it. Was it justified?

Its a lot more complex than they attacked him! What if in their mind they saw a guy with a gun and felt they needed to defend themselves like Kyle thought when he went there? No one knows. The trial is to determine if the scenario that played out was created by Kyle or not, thus rendering his self defense plea useless.

---

Freiheit is an alt-right shitheel and anything to do with this trial is completely out of his wheelhouse
---

I don't think you read the OP I was responding to. He's claiming they're celebrating a murderer getting away with it.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

The trial isnt trying to decide if he was Jeffrey Dahmer or not. Its if him murdering two people was justified. It doesnt matter if anyone thinks hes a murderer or not. Murder happened. We know that already. Was the murder justified?

Not all cases of killing are murder. Murder is specifically the unlawful killing of another person. If he if found not guilty due to self defense, then no murder took place and he wouldn't be a murderer. By definition.

Of course people are simping for a guy who beat up women and wanted to kill people

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

What if in their mind they saw a guy with a gun and felt they needed to defend themselves like Kyle thought when he went there?

I don't see how that would change anything.

---

Pretty much every witness the prosecution puts on the stand ends up being a big win for the defense.

Glad self defense rights will remain strong in America.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I don't see how that would change anything.

Werent they chasing a fleeing kyle and trying to kill him?

---

So what is the story? This kid supposedly went to another state with guns so he could have an excuse to shoot protesters?

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I don't see how that would change anything.

Why not? Why cant they use the same self defense argument? Its a hostile situation and they see a guy with a gun. They defended themselves. The argument would be that Kyle choosing to out himself in an already hostile situation, with a gun, acting like authority may have caused them to react. The argument can be made. You
csnt just throw it out. That is what is being decided here. If Kyle actively choosing to go into that situation is what instigated the resulting situation. Them not thinking hes a murderer is irrelevant to that. They could deem that he did defend himself and thus it wasnt murder but him making the choice to be there is what caused it, still making it his fault. There is a lot to this.

---

Flauros posted...

Werent they chasing a fleeing kyle and trying to kill him?

I thought people were allowed to shoot or pursue fleeing suspects just in case they might come back. Ive seen CE make that argument and Im sure you have in other cases. How come you wouldnt allow that here? For the record I dont believe he was innocent and running away. He was there looking for some and found it.

---

If they were in a legal position to defend themselves against KR, that wouldn't negate his supposed own right to do the same. So it wouldn't change anything.

TheVipaGTS posted...

him making the choice to be there is what caused it, still making it his fault.

That doesn't sound like a remotely legal argument. It's literally nonsense unless him being there was in fact illegal.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I have no clue what point I'm making. It doesn't matter.

---

A clear cut case of self defense.
The State never should have brought charges.

---

Of course they're happy with it

Fat little fuck went out of state to shoot people protesting racism

---

I love that the defense just saved the city of Kenosha from a 10 million dollar lawsuit.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Why not? Why cant they use the same self defense argument? Its a hostile situation and they see a guy with a gun. They defended themselves. The argument would be that Kyle choosing to out himself in an already hostile situation, with a gun, acting like authority may have caused them to react. The argument can be made. You
csnt just throw it out. That is what is being decided here. If Kyle actively choosing to go into that situation is what instigated the resulting situation. Them not thinking hes a murderer is irrelevant to that. They could deem that he did defend himself and thus it wasnt murder but him making the choice to be there is what caused it, still making it his fault. There is a lot to this.

When you're chasing and attacking someone who is actively retreating and running to get the police, you are not the one defending yourself.

You're engaging in some weird mental gymnastics.

Keep in mind, no matter the outcome fascists will be happy. Either they have a fascist leader for the future, or he becomes a martyr and they never have to actually include him in the future because frankly, he's a dumbass.

---

I think they're celebrating that it's pretty obviously self defense.

The prosecution is doing the defenses job at this point

TheVipaGTS posted...

I thought people were allowed to shoot or pursue fleeing suspects just in case they might come back. Ive seen CE make that argument and Im sure you have in other cases. How come you wouldnt allow that here? For the record I dont believe he was innocent and running away. He was there looking for some and found it.

Im pretty sure you are not allowed to do that. Looking for it or not, he was fleeing.

If someone robbed someone and they got shot in the back when trying to flee how would you feel?


---

Flauros posted...

Im pretty sure you are not allowed to do that. Looking for it or not, he was fleeing.

If someone robbed someone and they got shot in the back when trying to flee how would you feel?

Cops are allowed to

---

DarthAragorn posted...

Fat little fuck went out of state to shoot people protesting racism

Rittenhouses dad lives in the area and Rittenhouse worked as a life guard in that area. He was part of the community.

Rosenbaum wasnt protesting shit. He was just let out of a mental institution when he went to the riots to start fires.

---

RustyFerret posted...

I think they're celebrating that it's pretty obviously self defense.

The prosecution is doing the defenses job at this point

I liked when the prosecution opened their opening statement by saying there was no other way to describe the protests that night other than by calling them riots lmao

---

BeyondWalls posted...

Rittenhouses dad lives in the area and Rittenhouse worked as a life guard in that area. He was part of the community.

Rosenbaum wasnt protesting shit. He was just let out of a mental institution when he went to the riots to start fires.

And, if I recall, Rosenbaum was out on the street because his girlfriend had a protective order against him. He also, allegedly, threatened to kill members of Rittenhouse's group if he caught them alone.

Like, this isn't a case of some guy just going in and blasting a bunch of random victims at a protest. Rosenbaum was deliberately antagonizing and provoking people and he was only shot because he chased Rittenhouse down and lunged for his gun.

BeyondWalls posted...

A clear cut case of self defense.
The State never should have brought charges.

They kinda had to. As evidenced by even this topic, there is a portion of the population who think he is guilty no matter what, and any result of him being not guilty is him getting away with murder. If they didnt charge him the way they did last year, the riots would have been overwhelming. There will still be riots of course, but its a year later and they wont be as intense.

shockthemonkey posted...

Thats the thing that makes it so obvious Rittenhouse is a fucking psycho. He wanted to go kill protesters but made sure to figure out which protesters he could kill and possibly get away with it.

You sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Yes, Kyle "Light Yagami" Rittenhouse, master manipulator. Just had a sixth sense for picking out lunatic child molesters from a crowd of hundreds and a real talent for getting them to chase him specifically and try to take his gun,attack him with a skateboard, and pull a gun on him just so he could have a good excuse to blow them away.

All according to keikaku.

I know you're not happy that his case seems to be going really well for him, but come on, dude.

Esrac posted...

You sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Yes, Kyle "Light Yagami" Rittenhouse, master manipulator. Just had a sixth sense for picking out lunatic child molesters from a crowd of hundreds and a real talent for getting them to chase him specifically and try to take his gun,attack him with a skateboard, and pull a gun on him just so he could have a good excuse to blow them away.

All according to keikaku.

I know you're not happy that his case seems to be going really well for him, but come on, dude.

Go out with a gun by yourself, start an argument with people protesting, and when they question your motives act suspicious and make them worry you're going to shoot them. Then when one tries to disarm you, shoot calling it self defense.

That's not too different from how people have managed to get stand your ground laws in Florida to shoot their neighbors over a dispute regarding property lines or using their trash can or whatever.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Thats the thing that makes it so obvious Rittenhouse is a fucking psycho. He wanted to go kill protesters but made sure to figure out which protesters he could kill and possibly get away with it.

shockthemonkey posted...

what? The dude said he wanted to go shoot protesters and made sure to know the law well enough that he might get away with it. How did you extrapolate that so much into him being some mastermind?

There is nothing supporting this. Why the are you making shit up?

He went there with a med kit and was going around calling himself an EMT (he only had a little training). He was ambushed by Rosenbaum after several hours of being there.

Tons of EMTs there had a gun, including one of the people shot. I guess they were all there to kill.

Geniuses not understanding how convincting on something this flimsy just gives the justice system and the right more power.

gunplagirl posted...

Go out with a gun by yourself, start an argument with people protesting, and when they question your motives act suspicious and make them worry you're going to shoot them. Then when one tries to disarm you, shoot calling it self defense.

That's not too different from how people have managed to get stand your ground laws in Florida to shoot their neighbors over a dispute regarding property lines or using their trash can or whatever.

First off, Rittenhouse didn't start an argument with any of them. Second off, none of them were trying to disarm him or worried about him till after Rosenbaum.

And third, you cannot disarm someone for just carrying a gun in an open carry state. You will be shot and it will be self-defense. This is ignoring that no was trying to disarm him anyway.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

It doesnt matter if anyone thinks hes a murderer or not. Murder happened. We know that already. Was the murder justified?

Homicide happened. Murder is a specific term.

---

Esrac posted...

When you're chasing and attacking someone who is actively retreating and running to get the police, you are not the one defending yourself.

You're engaging in some weird mental gymnastics.

Actively retreating doesn't really mean shit when you've got a weapon with an effective range of 400-600 yards.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

what? The dude said he wanted to go shoot protesters and made sure to know the law well enough that he might get away with it. How did you extrapolate that so much into him being some mastermind?

I'm being facetiously hyperbolic because of the ridiculousness of your statement. Because that's the kind of thing you're suggesting, when you say things like "he made sure to figure out which protestors to kill". That he's pulling some wily scheme.

You're implying he picked out, from a crowd of hundreds, three unsavory targets he could cleverly manipulate into attacking him, just so he could kill them. Like he made Rosenbaum threaten to kill him, made him chase him into a corner and lunge for his gun. Then made the second guy swing a skateboard at his head and made the third guy pull a gun on him.

He went there with a gun strapped to himself and started acting like the police, claiming he was protecting the storefronts (of which the owners testified that they didnt want his help). He wasnt just innocently standing around. Its not absurd to think someone saw him as a threat, especially in all that chaos.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

He went there with a gun strapped to himself and started acting like the police, claiming he was protecting the storefronts (of which the owners testified that they didnt want his help). He wasnt just innocently standing around. Its not absurd to think someone saw him as a threat, especially in all that chaos.

Rosenbaum theatened to kill any of them if he caught them alone and then he hid behind a car and ambushed him later. He was walking over to put out a fire.

Almost every witness that the prosecution called testified that Rittenhouse was mostly going around asking people if they needed medical attention and that there were two situations where it was getting violent and he ignored it and didn't go to see what was happening and continued bugging people if they needed medical aid.

It doesn't matter if the owners wanted him or not. He answered a call they put up on Facebook and came and that wasn't illegal. He shouldn't have been there but it doesn't negate self-defense.

"Seeing him as a threat" would strengthen his self-defense. You don't just decide someone is a threat and then go attack them trying to take their gun in an open carry state.

Regardless, there's no proof anybody saw him as a threat till after he shot Rosenbaum.

---

I have been pretty ignorant to this whole thing until last week so forgive me if this is all over the place but

It seems like the left hates this kid because he is scum that went out of his way to be somewhere he shouldnt have been, with a gun, and killed a few people and apparently took advantage of white privilege in being treated the way he did. Got it. I can follow and it make sense.

Where I get lost is in the immediate judgment of him and the blatant ignorance of facts or the desire to see the facts that suggest he may have been justified in defending himself. The focus on whether or not you can call the people victims or on what he did years prior is lost on me. It doesnt matter for purposes of this trial.

It seems like this case may not have gone to trial if it wasnt such a high profile story. They would have had him plea to a lessor offense to get a win. But now, politics and pressure force them to go forward and the prosecution is in a bad spot where they may not be able to get a guilty verdict because the evidence doesnt support it but they have been told they have to try.

Just seems like a total mess.

---

It's not consider murder when you defend yourself or others.
TheVipaGTS posted...

Its really weird how theyre going to bat for this guy. I mean I know why, but it still makes them look weird. Didnt the shop owners in the area testify against him, saying they didnt want his help defending their storefronts?

Of course, they would say that. They don't want retribution from these far left groups that have been rioting.

---

Someone who crosses state lines with guns for the express purpose to shoot people probably shouldn't be labeled self defense. But what do I know?

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Someone who crosses state lines with guns for the express purpose to shoot people probably shouldn't be labeled self defense. But what do I know?

You were bitching about others being dishonest in Rebel's banned thread, and here you are acting dishonest.

---