A former spokesperson for Kyle Rittenhouse says he became disillusioned with his ex-client after learning that he had sent text messages pledging to “fucking murder” shoplifters outside a pharmacy before later shooting two people to death during racial justice protests in Wisconsin in 2020.
Dave Hancock made that remark about Rittenhouse – for whom he also worked as a security guard – on a Law & Crime documentary that premiered on Friday. The show explored the unsuccessful criminal prosecution of Rittenhouse, who killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
As Hancock told it on The Trials of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 90-minute film’s main subject had “a history of things he was doing prior to [the double slaying], specifically patrolling the street for months with guns and borrowing people’s security uniforms, doing whatever he could to try to get into some kind of a fight”.
Hancock nonetheless said he initially believed Rittenhouse’s claims of self-defense when he first relayed his story about fatally shooting Rosenbaum and Huber. Yet that changed when he later became aware of text messages that surfaced as part of a civil lawsuit filed by the family of one of the men slain in Kenosha demanding wrongful death damages from Rittenhouse.
Wait are you trying to tell me that the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to a state he didn’t live in to shoot protestors he didn’t know ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with wanted to kill people?? Wow I am shocked. Shocked!
Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.
Edit: not a single inaccurate statement in my comment, but narrative-clingers gotta downvote because inconvenient facts just make them that mad, lol. Shameful.
Fact checking time~
the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to
The gun was not in his possession until the day after he arrived.
to a state he didn’t live in
But that he previously worked in, and his father lived in. Not exactly a strange neighborhood.
to shoot protestors he didn’t know
It’s obvious he didn’t go there “to shoot protesters”, for several factual, verifiable reasons:
- He had hours of opportunities to open fire on protesters, and never did. He did not even anti-protest.
- He didn’t shoot anyone unprovoked, and every time he was provoked, he ran away instead of escalating.
- The only people who were shot by him that day were people who, when he ran away from their provocation, instead of letting him run away, chased him down and tried to kill him when they caught him. He prevented their murder attempts. This is crystal
- None of those who were shot were ever protesting; all three were destructive rioters with violent criminal records who were there not there to support any cause.
- Actions speak louder than words. Tons more people, tell their buddies they’d ‘kick that guy’s ass if I was there’ etc., but do not act that way at all when they’re actually in the situation. And that happens in the actual situation is what matters. Also, none of the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse were known to have shoplifted/looted, so they don’t even fall into the category he was speaking about.
ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with
There are text records of the business requesting his help, and one of the co-owners of that business, after denying it, was seen taking a posed ‘thank you’ picture with him after they had spent some time at the dealership that day. The evidence is clear they were there because they were directly requested to be there.
Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.
Nope, but I can understand how you’d reach that conclusion, considering you have basically every relevant fact of the case wrong. That’s what happens when you get narratives from social media, instead of drawing conclusions based on facts and evidence. There’s a ton of hard video evidence, you know.
It’s funny that on the day the verdict was delivered, the megathreads on Reddit announcing it were full of people admitting coming to terms with the fact that it was ironclad self-defense, and that social media and sensationalized news sources had created a narrative that directly contradicted the facts. And now years later, the only people still really talking about that case are the ideologues on both wings still clinging so desperately to those bullshit narratives, still repeating the same easily-debunked talking points they were fed by their echo chamber of choice, that were debunked before the trial even began. Hell, you can still find people claiming all the people he shot were black, lol.
This case has become such a perfect litmus test for identifying ideologues over people who both care about what’s actually true, and are actually willing to inform themselves instead of just swallowing whatever talking points they’re fed. Especially considering how EASY it is to debunk the bullshit, in this particular case.
It almost makes me not want to correct the lies, to make sure I can keep easier tabs on the liars, lol.
Yeah… he was an idiot for choosing to bring a firearm near known civil unrest, but it was pretty clearly self-defense. I mean they ran after him and attempted to seize his firearm…
Pretty good case for gun control as a concept, though. Ultimately both parties were endangered and forced into action by fear for their lives by the fact that the firearm was in the situation to begin with. As a protestor, I’d fear for my life if an armed counter protestor showed up, cause you know the cops aren’t gonna keep you alive if that guy chooses to start shooting. But any action I could take to prevent that puts the firearm owner in a position to reasonably fear for their lives. The mere appearance of the firearm puts the situation on a path to escalation. Maybe lethal weapons shouldn’t be allowed casually in public.
he was an idiot for choosing to bring a firearm near known civil unrest
I mean, you can say it was a bad choice to go, period, but choosing to be armed while he was there was absolutely correct, both in a vacuum and in hindsight. Rosenbaum likely would have killed or at least injured Rittenhouse if the same sequence of events went down, except with him being unarmed.
He was obviously, visibly armed with a long rifle the entire time he was there, but no one thought anything of it. He was walking around for hours doing his thing and nobody was freaking out. The first person TO freak on him, did so for a reason completely unrelated to him being armed, and it’s only that altercation that even got the other two attackers’ attention on him at all.
both parties were endangered and forced into action by fear for their lives by the fact that the firearm was in the situation to begin with.
No. Rosenbaum, the catalyst for all this, was absolutely NOT “endangered and forced into action” nor had any reason to be in fear of his life, just because someone was armed in his vicinity, in a state where open carry is legal.
Rosenbaum was the aggressor, and he had zero justification for his aggression.
As a protestor, I’d fear for my life if an armed counter protestor showed up
-
Rittenhouse was not a counter protestor. He did zero counter protesting. He was even handing out water bottles to, and performing basic first aid on request (he was walking around yelling “medic! friendly!” to let others know he was available for such), for protesters.
-
Despite how you would feel, you must contend with the fact that no one freaked out when Rittenhouse arrived, nor did they while he was walking around offering his ‘services’, even though he was very obviously armed with a long rifle the entire time. Given the fact that it’s a legal open carry state, I’m not surprised by this, but the fact is that his presence while armed was perceived as entirely mundane right up until Rosenbaum flipped out on him (again, for a reason that also had nothing to do with his gun).
I think anyone who claims open carrying a firearm doesn’t escalate a situation is either incredibly unaware, or intentionally ignorant. There’s a reason they teach about this sort of dynamic in policing and self-defense classes.
Rittenhouse defended himself reasonably, but absolutely escalated the situation by bringing a firearm to defend a local business, per his own testimony.
I think anyone who claims open carrying a firearm doesn’t escalate a situation is either incredibly unaware, or intentionally ignorant.
It’s much more likely that you just don’t live in an open carry state, so you’re projecting how you’d feel about it if it happened where you do live, unable to empathize with the fact that it’s much more mundane to someone who does live in a state with legal open carry.
How do you contend with the fact that nobody reacted negatively to his arrival, nor his presence over several hours? That’s the fact that your contention cannot escape. You can claim it’s inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory to be armed there that day, but how do you explain that no one actually there gave a shit about it? No one ran screaming from him when he showed up. He was walking around giving first aid, handing out water bottles, extinguishing fires, all while obviously armed with a long rifle, and literally no one cared.
Even when someone DID react negatively to him, that reaction had literally NOTHING to do with his gun! Rosenbaum was pissed that the dumpster fire he set got put out!
Your claim that his being armed, in and of itself, escalated the situation, simply does not hold any water.
Solid assumptions! I’m actually a former competition shooter at the state level, but never national. I personally own an AR-15 that I use at the range sometimes.
I won’t be replying anymore, because you’re clearly as blinded by ideology as the people you rail so hard against. I hope you’re a teenager that will one day look back on this mentality with a sense of personal growth.
Have a good one.
Shooting competitively is completely irrelevant to whether it’s mundane to see someone in a public place armed with a rifle, in public.
The fact that you still can’t get around, is that nobody in that area on that day in Kenosha was intimidated by Rittenhouse being there armed, neither on arrival, nor as he walked around with the gun on him the whole time. The fact that your REFUSE to even address this fact and instead try to evade it over and over proves that you know it’s a brick wall your assumption runs smack into.
Stop being such an intellectual coward, and admit your argument holds no water.
you’re clearly as blinded by ideology
Bullshit, I’m the one stating facts and you’re the one insisting your baseless assumptions are true, even when there is evidence directly contradicting it.
You’re just desperately trying to rationalize your unwillingness to confront reality honestly, by constantly repeating the same nonsense.
deleted by creator
- Washington isn’t Wisconsin.
- You still can’t get around the fact that no matter how much anyone claims it was a big deal, the people there did not think it was a big deal. So the claim that it was inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory has zero merit. Again, even when he was aggressed upon, the aggression was COMPLETELY UNRELATED to his weapon.
Face facts.
-
I’m only surprised you didn’t bring up that he killed a registered sex offender. His defenders usually think that’s relevant for some reason.
I mean he did, but he both didn’t know that at the time and it’s not relevant to the goings on that night.
I’m just going to lead with this: he’s an idiot, and in an ideal world he would have not been in Kenosha that night at all.
That said, if you followed the trial and the evidence presented, it very obviously fit the definition of self defense.
I wish them the best in their civil trial, but unless they’re relying very hard on civil trials having a lower standard of evidence, are getting criminal trial evidence excluded, or are including new evidence not part of the criminal trial that makes a massive difference they probably won’t win.
Shooting Rosenbaum will likely have the easiest time if they can pay an ME to give contradictory expert testimony to what came from the criminal trial. Because while it’s on camera, you can’t clearly see what went on with their hands and the gun in the video, and have to rely on the ME and testimony to fill in the gaps.
Getting wrongful death civil damages for someone shooting someone who knocked them to the ground and was coming at them with a blunt object will be harder, but not as hard as for Grosskreutz, unless he can bar his criminal trial testimony from the civil case or come up with an excuse why his answers don’t mean what they appear to.
Most pushing back against the false narrative don’t actually think it’s relevant, vis a vis self-defense, but generally they consider it a bonus.
I know I’m not mourning Rosenbaum. Not only is he 100% responsible for his own death, having taken several completely irrationally-aggressive actions that collectively led to that end, but he just happens to be a five-time child rapist? Yeah, not exactly shedding tears for him over here.
I guess I had to prompt you.
Can’t help but notice you’ve not shown any of what I said to be inaccurate.
Cool. I had no intention of doing that. I just wanted to see if you’d do what I thought you’d do. You did.
Check out the master manipulator, bringing up a topic and then getting a reply on that topic.
lol
none of the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse were known to have shoplifted/looted
Shoplifters and especially looters is a common rightwing racist buzzword used to justify them being violent. It was never truly his intention to go after looters, that was always a codeword. Please look into people who patrol after hurricanes for looters - it’s a racist idea and they are forming little KKK groups literally. They did that as well in Oregon during the Blue River fires and literally almost got themselves and others killed, protecting “property from looters” that was literally going to be burned up anyway, and there weren’t any looters!!! Can’t emphasize this enough, no looters, so they were just delaying people escaping at gunpoint. Also can’t emphasize enough that looting and stealing is nonviolent, whereas shooting someone to death is quite violent.
If Rittenhouse was explicitly supposed to protect a business from looters, he would have security guard clearances and a paper pay trail. No, he was there to be a violent, possibly racist, pos. Quite clearly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/looting-starts-shooting-starts.html
Nice work ignoring everything else and hyper-focusing on ‘he really meant black people when he said ‘shoplifters’, trust me’.
Meanwhile, none of his attackers were black either, lol.
Keep grasping at those straws.
Wdym? We are talking about his intent here, right? And YOU and the defense claim he was acting righteously because he was “stopping looters.” Well, if “stopping looters” is a codeword for an action which historically means “I’m going to go out and violently harm people that are black or poor or who fit my idea of a looter,” then it’s entirely relevant.
We are talking about his intent here, right?
Yes, which is ultimately defined by his actions. If his actions contradict his words, you can’t pretend the words hold more weight than what he actually did.
Nothing he did that day in Kenosha supports the assumption that his intention was to go there and shoot anyone. Nothing. Period.
And YOU and the defense claim he was acting righteously because he was “stopping looters.”
Uh, no, nobody claimed that. Did you even watch the trial?
His actions and words are not contradictory though. There’s no contradiction. He wants to hunt down people under the guise of “looters”, by his own texts, and this historically is a justification for violence in this country. Then he conducted violence. Where’s the contradiction?
Everything in his life for months indicates his intention that night was violence.
His actions and words are not contradictory though. There’s no contradiction. He wants to hunt down people under the guise of “looters”, by his own texts
And then he…hunted down nobody. Aggressed on nobody. Fled as his first reaction every time unprovoked aggression came his way, instead of ever escalating. Only used his weapon when the alternative was literally to forfeit his own life.
“No contradiction”, huh? Are you that foolish to really think that, or that scummy to claim it, fully knowing how bullshit it is?
That’s a quite thorough debunk. Can you provide some sources for your claims?
lol incredible
This fuck should be in jail.
Sounds like he will be soon enough considering the path he’s been on.
Jail or Presidential prospect.
Or assassin after his brain can no longer handle the cognitive dissonance.
Por qué no los dos?
I thought the same thing about George Zimmerman, but despite multiple domestic violence arrests involving a gun, and numerous other scandals he’s apparently still free, living his best life.
Good point.
Can he also be sued into oblivion?
Sure wish this had come to light during the trial.
A ton of evidence was blocked iirc, this was probably included.
The judge was doing his damnedest to make sure we all knew where they stood.
This was known back then. The judge blocked it. I can kind of see why because he didn’t shoot any shoplifters. He shot people who threatened, chased, and assaulted him.
The whole situation was stupid and he shouldn’t have been there but from all the video I’ve seen of the actual event he was pretty selective with his targets when it came to actually shooting people. It wasn’t consistent with his bragging. I kind of wish people would stop giving him attention at this point because all they’re accomplishing is giving him a platform to grift rightwingers from.
The analysis I read from a lawyer explained how Wisconsin’s state laws on self defense are weirdly complex, and due to the exact order of events, under those laws, his intent technically didn’t matter, and that’s why it was inadmissible evidence. In most states it would be admissable, and he would be guilty. He even listed the laws out and while I don’t recall any of the details now, it did seem perfectly logical to my layman’s understanding. So it’s not that the judge was biased, it’s just that Rittenhouse, through dumb luck, happened to fall through a legal loophole. Wisconsin needs to fix it’s laws, because it’s abundantly clear he wanted to kill those people and morally speaking, I consider him to be an unrepentant murderer.
because it’s abundantly clear he wanted to kill those people
I don’t see that to be clear at all. He fled from the first person who attacked him and didn’t shoot him until they guy caught him and was trying to take his weapon after verbally threatening him. The other two men he shot both attacked him as well when he was fleeing the first incident. If I recall correctly one had struck him with a skateboard and the other pointed a handgun at him while he was down. Considering there were other people chasing after him he didn’t shoot I’d consider him to have been fairly restrained. Usually people trying to fake a “I was just defending myself” defense put less effort into creating their pretext for shooting.
To me this entire situation was the people on both sides of it playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.
This is how Wisconsin’s law is so fucked up: The three men he shot were not working together, were not coordinated, did not know each other. So, on the one hand, Rittenhouse may have subjectively felt under coordinated attack, he was not, but the subjective feeling is what matters for the law.
From Huber:s POV, he was trying to disarm a murderer. Maybe he felt threatened, too? But the law is so fucked, his POV doesn’t matter because he’s dead. In Grosskreutz’s POV, he was approaching an active shooter who’d just killed two men and trying to defuse the situation. When Rittenhouse pointed his gun, Grosskreutz would have been justified under the same law in blowing him away.
In short, the law incentivizes shooting first.
Is Wisconsin’s law really any different? Most states the test for self defense is reasonable belief that your life is in danger from an imminent threat, but I’d doubt that claim from anyone who is pursuing someone else who is fleeing from them.
I’m not familiar with other states’ laws. They could also be fucked up, too.
It would have made zero difference. Actions speak louder than words, and what he did that day directly contradicts this ‘message’.
He said he wanted to shoot a bunch of people for imagined slights, and he went on to do exactly that.
He went on to shoot people for imagined slights?
There is video, goofball. Three people attempted to murder him, unprovoked.
It’s not imagined that Rosenbaum screamed a literal death threat at him and then chased him down and tried to take his weapon to make good on said threat.
It’s not imagined that Huber tried to kill Rittenhouse with full swings of a skateboard (over 10 pounds on average, inarguably a lethal weapon when swung at the head) to the head, one of which connected.
It’s not imagined that Grosskreutz pointed his handgun (by the way, actually illegally possessed, unlike Rittenhouse’s rifle) at Rittenhouse’s head, before Rittenhouse raised his rifle and shot his arm (having a faster reaction time literally saved his life in that instance). Hell, he literally admitted to that being the sequence of events in court.
The only imagining is happening on your side. The facts contradict your narrative, that’s why you have no choice but to grasp at straws and lie when you’re confronted by them.
Three people attempted to murder him, unprovoked.
I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”. It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.
It’s almost like the “good guy with a gun” is an idiotic idea which turns situations into powder kegs of confusion and violence where everyone thinks they’re the good guy and bullets start flying.
I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”.
Who cares what you would consider provocation? The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it. No one reacted negatively to his arrival while obviously visibly armed, nor his walking around visibly armed, for hours, while he handed out water bottle and gave first aid to people. And why is it that the first person to react negatively to him was a maniac who pissed because the dumpster fire he set was extinguished? His rage had literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse’s weapon.
If the mere existence of the gun was so provocative, explain why no one there gave a shit about it. Reconcile your assertion with the facts, if you can.
It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.
That’s not really relevant, because Huber and Grosskreutz’s actions are completely nonsensical regardless of whether they assessed Rittenhouse as one or the other accurately. They both decided to try and kill Rittenhouse, and he prevented them from doing so, absolutely justified in defending his life against two more attempted murders, after already being forced to do so once, with Rosenbaum.
Not to mention that Rittenhouse was moving TOWARD the police line to report what had just happened with Rosenbaum, verbally announcing that he was doing so, when the other two decided they wanted to kill him instead.
The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it.
You and I have different definitions of the word “fact”.
Fact: On all of the video there is of him preceding Rosenbaum’s attack, no one is reacting in a way that indicates that they feel provoked by his armed presence.
Fact: You’re imbuing this magical inherent provocation based on literally nothing. It’s what you want to be true, so that you can rationalize your baseless narrative.
All those people that defended this douche when I said there was proof of intention that was dismissed by a biased judge can fuck all the way off.
Yup, it was clear from the start he was cruising for a fight, which the law is literally supposed to prohibit even from police officers
The prosecution team was 100% to blame for this little shit not getting what he deserved. I hope the litigants in the civil suit do a better job, but to be honest, they barely even need to try. Even I could put on a suit and walk in off the street and convince the jury of his liability in those killings. And that’s just using the evidence we had back in 2020. With these text messages, I could call it in over Zoom while driving around delivering pizzas for 40 minutes.
It’s easy to talk out of your ass about how you would have done a better job, but you clearly have no idea what the circumstances were that the prosecution team was dealing with. This particular piece of evidence for example was attempted to be admitted but was denied by the judge for being “irrelevant to the case.” The prosecution was fighting a court stacked against them and you would have had a hard time as well.
Even I could put on a suit and walk in off the street and convince the jury of his liability in those killings.
‘yes your honor, he’s liable because he dared to put out that fire, and then ran away when the guy who said it screamed “I’m going to kill you” and charged at him, and then tried to wrestle the rifle out of his hand.’
Buffoon.
🤔
Let’s stop giving this idiot a voice in the media, please.
let’s instead give him something that will make an example out of him for other conservatives to think twice about.
Murderous sociopaths gonna murderousociapathize
So many gun owners I know share similar sentiments. Gun ownership to them is all about getting a legal kill. America is disgusting.
America is so different from when I was a child. Late stage capitalism is destroying our once great national like a malignant brain tumor and it is painful to watch
It was never great, you were just deluded. Or, you enjoyed taking part in the spoils of slavery and imperialism. lol
what really did it for me was his ADHD pacing around in circles while the riot vehicles rolled in. this was a manic little kid, way too excited to be holding a gun.
Had to check if this was theonion@
Why this specific instance of Rittenhouse exposing himself as bloodthirsty when there were many more instances before it?
Is there some “fifty flags” rule before you can say they’re planning to murder people?
Let’s be honest. Many, if not most, of us talked big when we were that age. The texts are just that. This is a kid with an inferiority complex trying to be seen as a tough guy. His actions that night were more like the coward he is inside. Which is not meant as an insult really. But he ran away. And to me he really did fire in the legal definition of self defense. The crime here is that he was there and armed at all. And further that society failed to help this kid find productive ways to prove his worth to himself. Kids aren’t born like this.
He did exactly what he said he was gonna do. He is a coward both ways.
And then we all grabbed a gun and actually killed people.
Oh wait.
And no. There is no self defense claim when you instigated it.
Sure there is. If you are in a fist fight, and the other guy draws a gun and shoots. Now you can fire back in self defense. And the law in the state he was in doesn’t have any mention of “not if you instigate it”. You are welcome to your opinion, but it doesn’t change the law, and really has nothing to do with my comment. Your motivations are a bit like Kyle, you just needed to be seen making a statement, even if it had nothing to do with the comment you replied to.
That sounds a lot like you instigated a fight and had ragrets when the “find out” part came around. If self defense is two people justified for shooting at each other then we live in insane land and nothing matters anymore because you can just walk into a store and self defense yourself some groceries. “I just wanted groceries and the clerk was mean to me when I tried to leave!”
Except of fucking course not because we don’t live in insane land and all the self defense laws have exceptions for committing crime. Like instigating a fight specifically to murder someone.
If you want to continue off the point I made that the crime was that he was there with a gun at all… Show some data on the exception to the law in the state this happened. And I don’t know what land you live in. Seems pretty insane to spend more than other countries on Healthcare and get worse results… or that the law protects businesses right to sell more tickets than there are seats on a plane. And of course rental car reservations. Government for the people by the people protecting businesses instead of the people.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022 https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking
Right so you think you can actually self defense yourself some groceries. Good luck with that, get your affairs in order before you do it because you won’t be getting bail on an armed robbery charge with felony murder.
I see. So you have no data, just spouting off. I change my mind when presented with data/sources. But that was never your goal.
It doesn’t take data to see they weren’t legalizing murder.
Sure, to a point. But not about murdering people. And we didn’t then go and do just that. It shows some forethought. There have been other shooters who made posts before hand more or less admitting to wanting to provoke people, then claim self defense. They did not get to claim self defense.
It can influence a jury, sure. But it isn’t proof of much of anything other than his poor mental state, and how brainwashed he was.
Many, if not most, of us talked big when we were that age.
Doubt. I never threatened to kill people when I was that age. I never wanted a gun.
Maybe I’m special.
Another of the special folk chiming in here. I have never threatened to kill anyone in my life (except maybe as a very obvious joke) and I’ve never so much as fired a gun.
I’m not seeing any messages about murdering shoplifters thought. The only examples given were:
“I wish they would come into my house.”
“I will fucking murder them.”
What’s unclear about “I will fucking murder them.”?
He’s talking about shooting people coming to his house but the title talks about shooting shoplifters
“The texts were in response to seeing shoplifters at a CVS pharmacy on 10 August”
When he says “I wish they would come into my house”, the word they refers to the shoplifters. When he says he will murder them he is still referring to the shoplifters.
Yeah good point. Fair enough. Didn’t put these two together the first time I read it.
Do you understand the difference between someone saying they would defend themselves and someone literally saying they would murder people?
Sounds like the article is a little confused, or this is brand new stuff, which is possible.
The comments about wanting to murder people that I knew about came him and a friend filming Black people leaving a cvs and them “knowing” they were all shoplifters and wanting to kill them for it. They’d just go sit outside drug stores because of propaganda and “filming subjects”.
There was also the video where he tried to jump a younger girl and when 3 black guys (his age) yelled at him not to hit a young girl. He immediately fell to the ground in a fetal position and started crying and begging, literally that was his reaction to being told not to beat a young girl.
Those two examples together showed he didn’t have the same basic reactions to a situation any normal human would have. And that he can’t properly identify risks.
he can’t properly identify risks.
Give me a fucking break.
You think he responds to shit like a functional adult?
I will never give this useless fuck any excuse for the intentional murder he committed.
Reasons aren’t excuses.
Excuses absolve guilt, reasons help us prevent it from happening again. It’s a lot easier to prevent shit when you understand it
I think the double jeopardy thing should be modified somehow to allow re-prosecution
While great in this application, overall this is an extremely shit idea. Do you really think the same court that let the dipshit go wouldn’t abuse the change by trying the poor and minorities over and over until charges stick?
Life is complicated, think through the consequences of your ideas.
Edit: spelling
And not just the poor and minorities. Trump apparently had the DOJ go after people he perceived as disloyal or political enemies, costing them millions of dollars in legal fees. Imagine if the government then just got a redo whenever it wanted. Even for a fairly wealthy person, that’s going to be a potent tool to silence them.
deleted by creator
I think it’s a good idea that you’re nowhere near the decision-making aparatus.
Tell me how you love Kyle without telling me you love Kyle.
Pretty big leap in logic there.
Sometimes a new trial is allowed if new evidence comes to light. But I’m guessing that this was known evidence that was suppressed by the judge.
It’s not evidence of anything. Actions speak louder than words. The actions he took that day directly contradict any stated intention to shoot anyone. He used his weapon as a literal last resort all 3 times, when not doing so would have meant forfeiting his own life.
Textbook self-defense.
He created the situation he needed to escape from. That’s textbook offense. You don’t get to create confrontation and call it defense.
Extinguishing a fire is not provocation or confrontation.
Crossing state lines specifically to confront protestors with a deadly weapon very much is.
Crossing state lines
You mean traveling one town over, where he used to work and where his dad lives, an area he had exponentially greater ties to than any of the people who attacked him did?
Gee, wonder why you don’t say it that way. Could it be because you’re trying to make it sound like he traveled far out of his way to an unfamiliar area, because that helps your narrative about him ‘being where he doesn’t belong’ (while conveniently not considering whether any of his attackers ‘belonged’ there)? Hoping that the technically-true “cross state lines” obscures the fact that he lived on the border of the other state?
You’re absolutely transparent. Don’t try this disingenuous garbage on someone who knows the facts and knows about your pathetic rhetorical maneuvers.
specifically to confront protestors with a deadly weapon
He confronted literally no one. And no, existing while armed in a state where open carry is legal doesn’t count.
He wasn’t even counter-protesting!
Do you know what “confront” means?
Funny we have him on text saying that’s what he was doing and on video doing exactly that.
I don’t think I’m the one in need of a dictionary.
Oh wow at first I completely missed the totally original claim that the protestors weren’t from the area. Tell Fox news I said hi.
It’s already a really bad standard. There’s people who have had the same trial 4 times and there was more than reasonable doubt as to their guilt. If the prosecutor wanted to try Rittenhouse again he could have. And loosening this standard will only make it easier to put innocent people in prison.
No more than are already in there. We could try people like OJ again.
Sure we would… We can’t even keep from executing innocent people in the current system and you want to make it easier to convict innocent people.
I suppose that’s one lens to look at it with.
Why don’t we just stop prosecuting crimes altogether? Seems like the best way to prevent innocent people from being convicted.
Don’t be disingenuous.
Don’t shift the topic and I won’t. Kyle needs to go to jail. This is just OJ. Guilty as fuck.
Welcome to 1950s America, conservative judges and juries bending over backwards to let white murderers walk. If we break the Justice system to counter them though they don’t lose. They win. They will use that to cause even more havoc on the poor and minority victims the police serve up.
deleted by creator
Psycho gonna psycho.
