Current Events > Kyle Rittenhouse in trouble once more.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Imagine trying to sue someone you pulled a gun on lol

"For those who think Grosskruetz is a boy scout, or a pacifist as he testified, think again. He is a violent career criminal with a laundry list of prior offenses and convictions stretching back more than a decade.

These include domestic abuse, prowling, trespass, two DUIs, felony burglary and two charges of carrying a firearm while intoxicated one of which took place when he was banned as a felon from carrying a firearm, Daily Mail reported.

He also has a history of showing disdain for the law by lying to, and failing to co-operate with police and this was before the Rittenhouse case."

Lmfao. People need to get over Rittenhouse. It's funny how everyone he shot was a POS themselves

kinetika_ posted...

"For those who think Grosskruetz is a boy scout, or a pacifist as he testified, think again. He is a violent career criminal with a laundry list of prior offenses and convictions stretching back more than a decade.

These include domestic abuse, prowling, trespass, two DUIs, felony burglary and two charges of carrying a firearm while intoxicated one of which took place when he was banned as a felon from carrying a firearm, Daily Mail reported.

He also has a history of showing disdain for the law by lying to, and failing to co-operate with police and this was before the Rittenhouse case."

Lmfao. People need to get over Rittenhouse. It's funny how everyone he shot was a POS themselves

Always hilarious when goons try to use this stuff to justify Kyle shooting people. Nice to see you think shootings can be justified after the fact if the person shot was shitty enough.

Murphiroth posted...

Always hilarious when goons try to use this stuff to justify Kyle shooting people. Nice to see you think shootings can be justified after the fact if the person shot was shitty enough.

Agreed, it's nonsense.

Rittenhouse was justified to use self defense because his life was in danger. It's irrelevant what the people he shot were up to in their free time.

BurmesePenguin posted...

Agreed, it's nonsense.

Rittenhouse was justified to use self defense because his life was in danger. It's irrelevant what the people he shot were up to in their free time.

In the moment he was justified to use self defense, sure, but he's still absolute scum who put himself in that situation with the specific intent to play out his gun nut hero fantasies and shoot people.

Y'all really do a lot of victim blaming around here sometimes

When your best defense of someone's actions is "it was technically legal", then you should rethink whom you choose to stan.

Murphiroth posted...

In the moment he was justified to use self defense, sure, but he's still absolute scum who put himself in that situation with the specific intent to play out his gun nut hero fantasies and shoot people.

You're probably not wrong, but I still find it weird people need to say this as if they get cursed if they don't qualify "he was in the right" with "but he's also a piece of shit"

BurmesePenguin posted...

You're probably not wrong, but I still find it weird people need to say this as if they get cursed if they don't qualify "he was in the right" with "but he's also a piece of shit"

It's always worth noting that he's a shithead given how much hero worship he gets.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yes. No one is or has ever disputed this. This is not why people condemn Rittenhouse.

mario2000 posted...

Yes. No one is or has ever disputed this. This is not why people condemn Rittenhouse.

It's why a lot of people condemned Rittenhouse.

BurmesePenguin posted...

It's why a lot of people condemned Rittenhouse.

If they still dispute that Gaige admitted that he pointed his gun at Kyle first, then they are wrong, obviously.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Cool, how does that change that Kyle is scum for the reasons I've mentioned, or are you just slobbing him for funsies?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I do believe that Kyle is a fool and a moron for putting himself in that situation in the first place when he had no good reason to. He legally defended himself, yes, but the fact of the matter is that, had he not gone there, then no one would have died by his hands.

mario2000 posted...

I do believe that Kyle is a fool and a moron for putting himself in that situation in the first place when he had no good reason to. He legally defended himself, yes, but the fact of the matter is that, had he not gone there, then no one would have died by his hands.

You can say that about anything though. Nobody has to go to any protest. He's an absolute piece of shit, but that really shouldn't be a talking point at all unless him being there is somehow breaking a law.

Murphiroth posted...

Always hilarious when goons try to use this stuff to justify Kyle shooting people. Nice to see you think shootings can be justified after the fact if the person shot was shitty enough.

Nice assumptions about how I feel about this case there, goon

Autocraticus posted...

Gaige pulled a gun when approaching Rittenhouse. Sorry bud, you lose this lawsuit.

He pulled a gun while approaching somebody who had already shot two people to death.

If Murderhouse is allowed to claim "self defense" after intentionally going to what he already knew was a dangerous scene across state lines, Gaige can definitely claim defense of himself and others.

TMOG posted...

If Murderhouse is allowed to claim "self defense" after intentionally going to what he already knew was a dangerous scene across state lines, Gaige can definitely claim defense of himself and others.

I think you're right. Both had a legit self defense claim.

I'm not sure how that would work with each one suing the other, though. Probably not well.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Y'all really do a lot of victim blaming around here sometimes

*flashbacks to every time you see a topic about Chappelle or Rowling*

TMOG posted...

He pulled a gun while approaching somebody who had already shot two people to death.

If Murderhouse is allowed to claim "self defense" after intentionally going to what he already knew was a dangerous scene across state lines, Gaige can definitely claim defense of himself and others.

I'd like to see how this plays out in court then, assuming the case isn't dismissed.

Nemu posted...

You can say that about anything though. Nobody has to go to any protest. He's an absolute piece of shit, but that really shouldn't be a talking point at all unless him being there is somehow breaking a law.

He wasn't going there to protest. He was going there with a militia to "defend against looters" (re: harass and intimidate BLM protesters).

mario2000 posted...

He wasn't going there to protest. He was going there with a militia to "defend against looters" (re: harass and intimidate BLM protesters).

That qualifies as a form of counter protesting, moronic or not. As long as the status of him being there is legal, nobody should be using that as the crux of their argument. His reasoning, his personal character, how he has dictated himself since the incident, etc are all absolutely moronic, but I just don't see any reason to act like his choice to be there is something that should be harped on at this point.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's also hard to claim it if you intentionally went wandering around a volatile scene holding a large gun so you could intimidate people, but we all saw how that played out.

Nemu posted...

That qualifies as a form of counter protesting, moronic or not.

You're confusing "counter protesting" with "vigilantism".

Nemu posted...

That qualifies as a form of counter protesting, moronic or not. As long as the status of him being there is legal, nobody should be using that as the crux of their argument. His reasoning, his personal character, how he has dictated himself since the incident, etc are all absolutely moronic, but I just don't see any reason to act like his choice to be there is something that should be harped on at this point.

Again, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's good or a wise idea.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Philadelphia is a stand your ground state. You can use self defense to protect yourself and others. But as already established, Rittenhouse was already able to successfully argue in court that he defended himself against Gaige because Gaige drew on him first. If this goes to court it would be pretty interesting to see the argument play out that Gaige drew on Rittenhouse in defense of the other two people that he witnessed Kyle already shooting.

TopGoats posted...

oh hey 69 new messages lmao

nice

TMOG posted...

It's also hard to claim it if you intentionally went wandering around a volatile scene holding a large gun so you could intimidate people, but we all saw how that played out.

Unless it was illegal to be there I don't see how you could logically invalidate his self-defense claim based on his proven actions that night.

Definitely a lot of people here who still don't know the facts of the case

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Gaige is not going to win because Rittenhouse informed him that he was going to the police, and Gaige still did all that and then pointed the gun at him.

TMOG posted...

It's also hard to claim it if you intentionally went wandering around a volatile scene holding a large gun so you could intimidate people, but we all saw how that played out.

This is not what happened. Please stop spreading misinformation.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

How many other people killed anybody during the protest?

TMOG posted...

How many other people killed anybody during the protest?

This is a delusional argument.

InfinityMonster posted...

This is not what happened. Please stop spreading misinformation.

So your argument is that Murderhouse wasn't wandering around a volatile scene holding a large gun

BurmesePenguin posted...

This is a delusional argument.

No, it's a question.

Fine, it's a question with a delusional logic implication.

TMOG posted...

How many other people killed anybody during the protest?

Not sure. How many people chased a person who had a gun on him?

BurmesePenguin posted...

Fine, it's a question with a delusional logic implication.

What makes it delusional?

If the protests were so dangerous because "all the protesters/rioters had guns", then why were the only two people who died shot by Murderhouse?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The group he traveled with was a Trumpist, white supremacist militia.

TMOG posted...

What makes it delusional?

If the protests were so dangerous because "all the protesters/rioters had guns", then why were the only two people who died shot by Murderhouse?

Why did they attack him first? Did they think the kid with a rifle wouldn't defend himself with it?

TMOG posted...

What makes it delusional?

If the protests were so dangerous because "all the protesters/rioters had guns", then why were the only two people who died shot by Murderhouse?

You mean why were the only 2 people who died were people who chased after an armed person who was retreating?