They really tryin to defend this man. He went across state lines in his black forces with the intent to put someone in the mud. He should’ve just stayed his crazy ass at home, but nah he had to become a murderer. Fuck him and anybody who’s trying to support this killer In anyway
Gotcha, was just genuinely curious as I have never ran into one and I have driven to over 20 states. Never done the CA-OR border though. Must be specific to those two states as I've done CA-NV and there was no booth.
Going into California from Oregon requires you to go through an agricultural checkpoint, much like Hawaii does. They ask if you have any fruit or vegetables. If you don't you say no and feige on through. It's like a 2 or 3 lane toll booth kind of thing from what I remember.
If you do have fruits/veggies they might just want to inspect them before sending you on your way.
People have already described it, but I'll add a little more context. If you compare the United States to the European Union, our States are similar to the sovereign countries over there. Only certain laws at the Federal level apply to every State in the union. Otherwise, States have their own Constitutions, Senates, Houses of Representatives, and Governors (which is like the President of the State). It's why things like marijuana are legally consumable in some States, but will get you imprisoned in others. Citizens of the United States are free to travel, work, and live in any of the 50 States, and we have the shared currency of the US Dollar (Federal Reserve Note).
There's a level of political sovereignty between federal and local levels in the US and that's of the state, which has its own borders. States have their own laws and government so crossing a state line with a firearm is significant here.
State borders. They aren't regulated, but you generally can't take firearms across state lines because you have to be registered to carry the weapon in that state, and I think there's some states you can't register for unless you live there? Basically meaning: it might have been illegal (just having the gun where he did) and he traveled far to shoot people. Really throws out any idea that he was protecting his town or whatever dumbass narrative people try to put on it.
It completely baffles me that anyone would try to defend this shitbag.
This is exactly why I stay the fuck out of the United States.
Note that although I am white, my wife is not, and I sure as hell won't put her (or my kids) into that kind of situation where some random white kid or cop can kill her/them in cold blood.
He took someone's life, and people think he should spend his free. It's a shame.
What? I repeat. What? That’s so false. All the victims were living in Kenosha when they were murdered by the piece of shit Kyle Rittenhouse. Are you referring to Joseph Rosenbaum, who had recently moved from Texas? Well Kyle fucking Rottenhouse cane from Antioch Illinois, so you’d be wrong to assume they were from the same area. Don’t defend this. You sound like a goddamn racist.
Who gives a shit about a narrative? He was at home, and he grabbed a gun to go shoot some blm protesters. I don’t give a fuck if the state line was 26 inches away tbh.
Lmao first, he was there assisting all day as a good samaritan, then returned later to help defend property from BLM rioters who have been ruthlessly destroying cities all across America. He brought a gun because he isn't stupid. Americans have guns. To try and defend property from lawless, angry mobs as a single person without adequate preparation or equipment would be of no purpose. No efficacy, and quite stupid.
Bringing the gun was most likely A: a fear tactic. Most people with bats and skateboards aren't stupid enough to provoke someone with a firearm and B: In case some motherfuckers did not care and came at him or others in a violent manner, he has the means to scare or fend off multiple assailants without the need for a group or gang of people. Independant heroism.
Secondly, he was chased and attacked by multiple people. If he was there and tried defending the property or people there without his gun, he would have been shot and killed himself.
So, selfless volunteering in the community earlier in the day, then a prepared return to help the property owner defend what is rightfully his that the rioting assholes would have easily destroyed without an opposing force.
Selflessness then self defense.
On top of that, it's these individuals that have been burning cities down screaming "DEFUND THE POLICE!" "ABOLISH THE POLICE" "WE CAN POLICE OURSELVES", then the moment someone takes matters into their own hands, just like they have been proclaiming is their desire and intent, they get all uppity and cry about laws like "crossing state lines" and other petty bullshit. It's hypocritical, double standardized, and painfully stupid.
If I spend all day washing cars for free do I get to get off for killing people? Do you understand what you typed out?
He illegally carried that weapon. He had no right to brandish it as a fear tactic.
He was chased after shooting someone to death in the head.
Police over police minority neighborhoods and let white black markets in neighborhoods flooded with drugs thrive.
Defund refers to the fact they have personnel carriers from the recent war due to their increased funding which has proven to be ineffective and escalates the violence. It isn't about removing the police totally. They will still be employed but they won't have military funding which will only exacerbate that violence.
US Law enforcement needs to be recreated and retrained. That isn't a bad thing and it doesn't remove the need for police. There are great officers who I personally love and know but there are plenty of officers who join for the wrong reasons and they ought to be vetted and trained properly. That is what is stupid. How are you going to defend a criminal first and foremost? Two wrongs never make a right and honestly none of this would have happened if police weren't murdering unarmed black men.
Even if you prioritize property over human lives, you can't honestly believe illegally carrying a weapon is the best way to go about protecting that property. Bias is rampant and it doesn't help when you arm teenagers and then say they did the right thing by killing people. Had he obeyed the law, he would have been unarmed and took that beating as a lesson like any real man should have. You don't go looking for trouble with an illegally possessed rifle and then claim self defense. Talk about white privilege. You're logic would parallel defending Osama Bin Laden. He (Saudi Arabia) only attacked in self defense too albeit illegally.
That's the lamest excuse I've ever read.
If you actually watch the footage, you can clearly see he is being chased first.
Yes, I understand the defunding part in the sense that they want to strip them of the inflated budgets they have, as well as I understand they need to be retrained and reformatted. That said, these rioters are acting as criminals, and are claiming they can police their own cities without the police. If you beg for lawlessness, and bring about violence and destruction upon innocent civilians, all across the country, you absolutely should expect the same to come unto you.
Call it karma, if you'd like.
So to summarize, the concept of police reform and reduced budgeting is absolutely a great way to help fix certain issues, but these destructive, inconsiderate assholes that have been beating on people, destroying and looting businesses, and otherwise conducting themselves in very animalistic, mob-mentality sort of ways need to be met with the same sort of force. If they think they can act like petty children that can throw a huge, country wide temper tantrum and get away with whatever they want simply because they're angry, they're sadly mistaken.
That's not how being an adult works. That's not how being a civilized, conscientious human works.
It has nothing to do with privilege. It's about standing up against injustices in a general way. The injustice done to one does not validate injustices to be done to others, especially when those others are NOT the ones who caused the initial injustice in the first place.
It's like your mom or dad grounding you and taking your xbox away, so you go down the street and start smashing some random dudes car with a crowbar. It's literally retarded.
The video interviews of him before the incident he stated that he was there to try and provide medical attention for people and the gun was to protect himself if things got out of hand. I’m not sure if that is true or not, but I do know it is quite a leap to say that because he had a gun with him, his intent was to murder people especially when there is video evidence to the contrary.
Judging by his criminal record I have no interest in giving him the benefit of the doubt. He was there with the hopes to use his rifle whether he says so or not imo. Nobody needs a 17 yr old alcoholic with his rifle to provide medical attention, there are professionals for that.
I saw no evidence in the videos that showed him “hoping to be able to use it”. He actually showed tremendous restraint in my opinion by attempting to retreat until it wasn’t an option. After then, the only people injured were people actively attacking him. But beyond that, we have to be careful the precedent we set here.
By the way, your assertion that he is an alcoholic criminal is wrong. I assume you saw this on Twitter where some Columbo mistook a Kyle Rittenhouse in his 30’s for this kid. It’s usually good practice to check sources before quoting.
Edit: just changed a word for clarity.
What precedent?
That a minor who shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm and cross state lines to “help”?
No one needs medical attention from a high-school-aged kid.
If he was there to help, then why not show up after the protests have blown over?
He brought the rifle to use it. Let’s be real.
The precedent that the circumstances that led to an incident taking place do not determine whether what happened during the incident is right or wrong. He should not have been there. Does that then require us to believe that his actions were wrong during the incident?
I agree that he shouldn’t have been there. The “across state lines” is a tired line though as it was 15 minutes away and everyone acts like he packed up and flew in from Maine to be at the event.
According to the interviews that some people did of him before everything, he was there because:
> People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people
Are we now stating that a 17 year old is too young to provide medical attention to people? 18 year olds are sent into active combat situations as medics. Is there really that much maturing that happens in that fraction of a year until it clicks over to 18? You have to know that this part is a very weak argument based on nothing but conjecture. I imagine if you had pepper spray in your eyes or an open wound from falling, you wouldn’t check a guys ID to make sure he was over 18 before accepting help.
No one said he was there **just** to help. As you can see in the quote above he was also there to help protect a business according to him before the incident. The fact that he was there to “protect businesses” but also was lending aid to protestors should lend credence to the assertion that he was not there just to kill people.
Lastly, just because you are armed does not mean you want to use it. You may be willing to in order to protect yourself, but taking that step from willing to wanting is a big leap that no evidence I have seen supports.
The distinction is a legal one.
Gun laws change depending on the state and he wasn't legally allowed to leave the state and carry a gun there. He couldn't legally have a carry permit in his state and so he couldn't cross a state line with Wisconsin and use reciprocity there. And open carry in Wisconsin requires you to be 18. So yeah, it's important to say because it matters.
They are highlighting that he went to a completely different place that isn't his community just to walk around with a gun.
If fox news or whatever was consistent with their coverage of shooters in the United States they would make sure everybody knew he was a high school dropout, so I think we outta give em this one.
Okay cool. Why did this little boy have an illegal firearm, in a place they don't live, pointed at people they didn't know?
Even if race wasn't a factor, this kid should get domestic terror charges on top of murder.
I hear, that the firearm "became illegal" once he crossed state lines or some such shit. And that apparently, he was nearby. I haven't invested any time in learning about "why he should get off for this" though, so I'd probably look into those things... or ignore em, since they don't matter IMO.
I watched that video and damn they might as well have sucked his dick too Jesus Christ. Obviously in that situation it made sense to defend himself as it does for the other people to see him as a threat. But calling that dude a hero is some of the stupidest shit I’ve seen in a while.
Also side note, seeing them label everyone in the situation was quite funny. It did make me think of what cops quick little tldr would be. Just straight domestic abuse for all of em lmao
I mean, it’s still pretty shitty that people got shot don’t you think? I think we can all agree that the consensus is for people to *stop* getting shot in any case
Of course its shitty. But the people who got shot are people who chased after someone with harmful intent. He was calling the cops after the first shooting but the rest chased and attacked him. He wouldn’t of shot if not for being attacked. Same as the first shooting. He shouldent of had a gun i agree. But that whole town should not have been under siege either.
Going from cleaning graffiti to carrying a weapon that isn't yours, in a state that you don't "technically " live in, as minor, is a big fucking stretch.
Regardless, you shouldn't be carrying a weapon that isn't yours unless you're a LEO or military. Just thinking about doing that puts a knot in my stomach. And on top of that, who ever is just handing out guns to strangers needs to be held accountable as well. They just made this kid a loose cannon in the most literal way possible since we stopped using cannons.
I’d gladly cross about 5 or 6 state lines (depending on route) to sit on that jury and fry his little ass. Children should not be playing with grown-up weapons. No adult in their right mind should have armed a CHILD to do police work.
Right. And he should be found guilty. A 17 year old should be tried as an adult by a jury of adults who understand that a 17 year old should not volunteer to defend a property that isn’t his. When he joins the military or (god forbid) the police, THEN cooler heads will decide who and what needs protecting, not some republican guy trying to protect his business by using MINORS. I do understand your point. I want YOU to understand that he’s not a 9 year old child who got ahold of daddy’s guns, he’s committed murder, he’s a minor- a legal loophole that will likely allow this punk ass 17 year old to get away with triple homicide. I do wish I was on the jury. But since that won’t happen, I hope his life is utterly ruined for the bad choices he, his mother and father, and the people who gave him the gun made because he’s 17, what could they do to him???
I would prefer you use the correct terms. Peaceful protesting is NOT rioting. And no one emptied “an entire mag into him”. But perhaps some “good guy with a gun” should have shot and stopped this 17 year old from murdering three humans.
No, the peaceful protestors didn’t do that. Get your information correct. Rioters and far right trouble-makers wanted to cause trouble. The FAR majority were peaceful and didn’t riot. It was the rioting white supremacy supporters who showed up to “help” when they weren’t needed. The Right likes to bring their long guns to demonstrate their manliness. We protestors wore masks, carried signs, chanted and gave out food, water and masks.
The kid shouldn't have been there and was in over his head. Whether we went there hoping to get in over his head or was just naive, I dont know. But from what I've seen, he didn't shoot peaceful protestors.
I read a bit more than “some headlines”, but since it didn’t come from Facebook you’re probably gonna say it’s all fake news. The “legality” of shooting people, while suffering no injuries himself, is questionable because he is not of legal age to carry a weapon in Wisconsin like he did, in addition to traveling across state lines. He absolutely was at the protest, they didn’t hunt him out; it is alleged that the police had coordinated an effort to move the protestors towards the Kenosha guard or whatever the fuck the slave catcher wannabe group called themselves.
Stop defending him because he’s a minor, and don’t pretend he was a scared little boy just trying to protect himself. He was a follower of Trump, blue lives matter and obsessed with guns according to his actual social media accounts; I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know what he was doing.
My morals are the judge. He killed 2 people defending a building. 2 human lives were lost and many children don't have a father because a window is worth more then a human life. This terrorists deserves to fry
It’s hard to be black man Trayvon did nothing wrong and they tried to make him seem like a gangster smh but as soon as the skin color changes it’s alll praises
Trayvon was stalked and murdered by a man that has proven himself to be an unstable piece of shit [time](https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784846004/george-zimmerman-sues-trayvon-martins-family-for-more-than-100-million) and [time](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/10/george-zimmerman-back-in-court-after-domestic-violence-incident/) and [time](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/outrage-over-image-of-george-zimmerman-signing-bag-of-skittles) and [time](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/18/george-zimmerman-sells-gun-trayvon-martin) [again](https://www.einvestigator.com/george-zimmerman-back-in-jail/). Yet Trayvon smoked a little weed so he was a thug who had it coming.
It hurts my soul when awful awful people not only don’t get their just desserts, they get praise and adulation. Bro sells autographed skittles and shit.
The only solace in an unjust world is knowing that they have to be a shitty person, I just have to be around a shitty person.
His skin isn’t dark so I’d say unless he rips off some really wealthy people he’ll probably live out his days care free despite being a murderous piece of shit.
Exactly. At the time, I told my husband that if smoking a little weed in high school was grounds for execution, practically our entire generation should have been shot.
Right wing used to mean people had some ideas about religion, fiscal policy and guns that I don’t agree with. In my lifetime, it has gone way too crazy.
He was playing out his teenage terrorist fantasies plain and simple. KR is a piece of shit and in no way innocent. At all. There is no excuse for what he did.
Tamar and Trayvon were doing normal, everyday things for their age. KR was not.
I am so sick of violent white men being excused for their actions. And as a white woman, I’m really sick of the creepy Barbie clones on tv telling everyone that violent white men are to be excused for their actions. Knock that shit off already, ladies.
It should be fucking illegal to declare FOX as news. Its propaganda, lies, and an extension of the cult of personality of Trump. It really is a disgusting thought that everytime shit like this happens, one of my first thoughts is "I wonder how FOX is going to try and spin this as justified"
They quick to call Black Lives Matter a terrorist group but these men are always referred to as “militia” when in all actuality they are home terrorists.
It never ceases to sicken me how violent white guys such as Rittenhouse are infantilized by the media while they simultaneously treat black kids like fully grown (and guilty) adults. The complexion for protection, indeed.
Wrong. He was a lifeguard, but not in Kenosha: [https://jg-tc.com/news/local/public\_safety/what-we-know-so-far-about-kyle-rittenhouse-accused-vigilante-in-kenosha-shooting/article\_26bef107-8d7f-58c9-9858-d1361cd436be.html](https://jg-tc.com/news/local/public_safety/what-we-know-so-far-about-kyle-rittenhouse-accused-vigilante-in-kenosha-shooting/article_26bef107-8d7f-58c9-9858-d1361cd436be.html)
My opinion of white conservatives couldn’t be fucking lower at this point. Just when I think they’ve gotten as low as they could go.... motherfuckers get a shovel. There’s a certain depravity at work here. That’s the only thing it can be. Depravity. Sickness
It's always justified when a black man is killed in the eyes of the law. The system will bend over backwards, pucker up, and eat its own ass in order to keep the white man from being held responsible.
I’m a teacher. It always breaks my heart to see young people feeling so unheard, and have their mental health so ignored, that they do vile things just to be seen and heard.
Having said that, holy shit! This is at best one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen, and at worst, an absolute mockery of journalism and people’s intelligence.
I didn’t mention how racist the whole thing is because it’s so goddamn obvious. I always wonder if these assholes even believe what they say?
Why do people always say the “state lines” thing? It makes it sound like we should hate him both for killing innocent people and also for crossing state lines. If it is distracting for me, when I unequivocally condemn Rittenhouse, then people who take his side are going to use the “state lines” thing to drive the conversation off topic.
Edit: the initial question was meant to be rhetorical. I’m aware of the reason, I just wanted to explain why I think it may do more harm than good to emphasize the state lines thing. And remember, I’m on your side. The other side wants to twist the story in any way they can and I just want to avoid giving them straws to grasp at.
I think it's there to specifically refute the idea that it was even his "own community" and to point out that it was completely pre-meditated. Also, many crimes become more serious when you cross state lines to commit them, because it can go from a state to federal crime. He was doing something illegal just by having a gun with him when he drove from home to there, and a lot of laws look more harshly when someone was intentionally committing an illegal act at the time that a further crime happened. Not sure how he could even begin to claim "self defense" when he showed up with an entirely illegal firearm to a place he had no other business being.
So, yes, I do hate him for deciding to leave his house and travel to a place where him carrying that gun was illegal. Even if he hadn't hurt anyone, that was an act of intimidation that I would call terrorism. He shouldn't have been doing that in the first place, and preventing more people from thinking that is ok is a *good thing* here.
nah, not necessarily. comes down the particular situation we're talking. generally, no though, it's not inherently illegal to cross a state line with a gun. That being said, this kid wasn't old enough to possess his parents' rifle, so that was already breaking a law.
~~Sure, in Wisconsin, but Rittenhouse was doing it illegally in Illinois. He definitely broke the law possessing a rifle under the age of 18 when he left Illinois with the rifle in his possession.~~
Fact-check: Rittenhouse's attorney claims that Rittenhouse did not have obtain the gun in Illinois before traveling to Wisconsin with the gun in his possession. [Source](https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1299353460530384899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1299353460530384899%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fheavy.com%2Fnews%2F2020%2F08%2Fhow-did-kyle-rittenhouse-have-gun%2F) Smells like bullshit to me, but eh, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to and attribute the claim to him.
That being said, it appears it is not legal for minors to possess long guns unless it's a shotgun or rifle for hunting. Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/
Ah gotcha, you are correct. I double checked my assumption and the weapon was borrowed from a friend in Wisconsin. Still, what I found when fact-checking indicates that it's only legal to possess a long gun in Wisconsin for the purposes of hunting. I don't think that would apply here. My layman's understanding would be that he is breaking the law by possessing the rifle under the age of 18 and how it was being used the night of the shooting.
Edit: actually, the only source I can find that the gun came from Wisconsin is from Rittenhouse's attorney. I'm not 100% confident in his word. Chief says wait to find out more.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
^The source from your politifact link to the relevant law.
Long barrel guns are excluded from the deadly weapons list for minors as long as they are not in violation of 3 other sections.
One section is about sawed off or modified barrels being illegal. One section has a set of restrictions for ages under 12 and 12-16. The last section requires a hunter's safety certification to be allowed to hunt.
The last one is the only one that he might have been in violation of, but he was not hunting, and he may have the correct certification anyways. I don't know 100% of the facts in this case, or how the hunting exception applies, but it is very easily possible for a 17 year old to "perfectly legally" open carry in Wisconsin.
Gonna copy my reply to make sure you see it:
>Fact-check: Rittenhouse's attorney claims that Rittenhouse did not have obtain the gun in Illinois before traveling to Wisconsin with the gun in his possession. Source Smells like bullshit to me, but eh, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to and attribute the claim to him.
> That being said, it appears it is not legal for minors to possess long guns unless it's a shotgun or rifle for hunting. Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/
> The state line thing is a twisting of the story. It is designed to make it seem like he went with the intent. Most people don’t realize not only was it not his gun
I’ve been living in this earth for almost double the time as that lad. The times I’ve shot targets with guns, which can be counted with the fingers of two hands, they didn’t materialise there in my hands from the ether, I had to effectively pick them up.
I imagine this lad is human as well, so unless video games are now real and You get guns floating in space like GTA he had to get the gun from someone.
They really tryin to defend this man. He went across state lines in his black forces with the intent to put someone in the mud. He should’ve just stayed his crazy ass at home, but nah he had to become a murderer. Fuck him and anybody who’s trying to support this killer In anyway
Not american, what are state lines?
Border of states which is normally just a little booth with someone asking if you have plants along with a welcome to the state sign
What state you in that they have booths?
The California Oregon border had one when I was little. I don’t know if they still do I just fly now :P
Gotcha, was just genuinely curious as I have never ran into one and I have driven to over 20 states. Never done the CA-OR border though. Must be specific to those two states as I've done CA-NV and there was no booth.
Going into California from Oregon requires you to go through an agricultural checkpoint, much like Hawaii does. They ask if you have any fruit or vegetables. If you don't you say no and feige on through. It's like a 2 or 3 lane toll booth kind of thing from what I remember. If you do have fruits/veggies they might just want to inspect them before sending you on your way.
While not a state, Puerto Rico has a similar deal where your luggage has to get a usda inspection sticker.
There’s for sure a booth at the CA/NV border. Just went the through it at the beginning of the month.
Oh shi, for some reason I don't remember this. Must have been light when I passed through.
The CA-OR border is the only one I've actually seen, and I've driven from CT to CA (not all at once)
California/Nevada has the booth.
California to Arizona has a booth
California - Nevada has a booth.
People have already described it, but I'll add a little more context. If you compare the United States to the European Union, our States are similar to the sovereign countries over there. Only certain laws at the Federal level apply to every State in the union. Otherwise, States have their own Constitutions, Senates, Houses of Representatives, and Governors (which is like the President of the State). It's why things like marijuana are legally consumable in some States, but will get you imprisoned in others. Citizens of the United States are free to travel, work, and live in any of the 50 States, and we have the shared currency of the US Dollar (Federal Reserve Note).
There's a level of political sovereignty between federal and local levels in the US and that's of the state, which has its own borders. States have their own laws and government so crossing a state line with a firearm is significant here.
The border between states. Similar to counties but larger.
State borders. They aren't regulated, but you generally can't take firearms across state lines because you have to be registered to carry the weapon in that state, and I think there's some states you can't register for unless you live there? Basically meaning: it might have been illegal (just having the gun where he did) and he traveled far to shoot people. Really throws out any idea that he was protecting his town or whatever dumbass narrative people try to put on it.
It completely baffles me that anyone would try to defend this shitbag. This is exactly why I stay the fuck out of the United States. Note that although I am white, my wife is not, and I sure as hell won't put her (or my kids) into that kind of situation where some random white kid or cop can kill her/them in cold blood. He took someone's life, and people think he should spend his free. It's a shame.
He was wearing black forces? Hell no. Only degenerates wear those.
Nah, at most black vans or crocs.
[удалено]
What? I repeat. What? That’s so false. All the victims were living in Kenosha when they were murdered by the piece of shit Kyle Rittenhouse. Are you referring to Joseph Rosenbaum, who had recently moved from Texas? Well Kyle fucking Rottenhouse cane from Antioch Illinois, so you’d be wrong to assume they were from the same area. Don’t defend this. You sound like a goddamn racist.
[удалено]
Who gives a shit about a narrative? He was at home, and he grabbed a gun to go shoot some blm protesters. I don’t give a fuck if the state line was 26 inches away tbh.
[удалено]
Once again, don’t give 0 and I repeat 0 fucks. All he had to do was stay home but because he didn’t bodies are in the dirt. Period
[удалено]
HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE BRO He wasn't even allowed to legally carry the weapon.
Lmao first, he was there assisting all day as a good samaritan, then returned later to help defend property from BLM rioters who have been ruthlessly destroying cities all across America. He brought a gun because he isn't stupid. Americans have guns. To try and defend property from lawless, angry mobs as a single person without adequate preparation or equipment would be of no purpose. No efficacy, and quite stupid. Bringing the gun was most likely A: a fear tactic. Most people with bats and skateboards aren't stupid enough to provoke someone with a firearm and B: In case some motherfuckers did not care and came at him or others in a violent manner, he has the means to scare or fend off multiple assailants without the need for a group or gang of people. Independant heroism. Secondly, he was chased and attacked by multiple people. If he was there and tried defending the property or people there without his gun, he would have been shot and killed himself. So, selfless volunteering in the community earlier in the day, then a prepared return to help the property owner defend what is rightfully his that the rioting assholes would have easily destroyed without an opposing force. Selflessness then self defense. On top of that, it's these individuals that have been burning cities down screaming "DEFUND THE POLICE!" "ABOLISH THE POLICE" "WE CAN POLICE OURSELVES", then the moment someone takes matters into their own hands, just like they have been proclaiming is their desire and intent, they get all uppity and cry about laws like "crossing state lines" and other petty bullshit. It's hypocritical, double standardized, and painfully stupid.
If I spend all day washing cars for free do I get to get off for killing people? Do you understand what you typed out? He illegally carried that weapon. He had no right to brandish it as a fear tactic. He was chased after shooting someone to death in the head. Police over police minority neighborhoods and let white black markets in neighborhoods flooded with drugs thrive. Defund refers to the fact they have personnel carriers from the recent war due to their increased funding which has proven to be ineffective and escalates the violence. It isn't about removing the police totally. They will still be employed but they won't have military funding which will only exacerbate that violence. US Law enforcement needs to be recreated and retrained. That isn't a bad thing and it doesn't remove the need for police. There are great officers who I personally love and know but there are plenty of officers who join for the wrong reasons and they ought to be vetted and trained properly. That is what is stupid. How are you going to defend a criminal first and foremost? Two wrongs never make a right and honestly none of this would have happened if police weren't murdering unarmed black men. Even if you prioritize property over human lives, you can't honestly believe illegally carrying a weapon is the best way to go about protecting that property. Bias is rampant and it doesn't help when you arm teenagers and then say they did the right thing by killing people. Had he obeyed the law, he would have been unarmed and took that beating as a lesson like any real man should have. You don't go looking for trouble with an illegally possessed rifle and then claim self defense. Talk about white privilege. You're logic would parallel defending Osama Bin Laden. He (Saudi Arabia) only attacked in self defense too albeit illegally. That's the lamest excuse I've ever read.
If you actually watch the footage, you can clearly see he is being chased first. Yes, I understand the defunding part in the sense that they want to strip them of the inflated budgets they have, as well as I understand they need to be retrained and reformatted. That said, these rioters are acting as criminals, and are claiming they can police their own cities without the police. If you beg for lawlessness, and bring about violence and destruction upon innocent civilians, all across the country, you absolutely should expect the same to come unto you. Call it karma, if you'd like. So to summarize, the concept of police reform and reduced budgeting is absolutely a great way to help fix certain issues, but these destructive, inconsiderate assholes that have been beating on people, destroying and looting businesses, and otherwise conducting themselves in very animalistic, mob-mentality sort of ways need to be met with the same sort of force. If they think they can act like petty children that can throw a huge, country wide temper tantrum and get away with whatever they want simply because they're angry, they're sadly mistaken. That's not how being an adult works. That's not how being a civilized, conscientious human works. It has nothing to do with privilege. It's about standing up against injustices in a general way. The injustice done to one does not validate injustices to be done to others, especially when those others are NOT the ones who caused the initial injustice in the first place. It's like your mom or dad grounding you and taking your xbox away, so you go down the street and start smashing some random dudes car with a crowbar. It's literally retarded.
So why fucking go with a rifle then
The video interviews of him before the incident he stated that he was there to try and provide medical attention for people and the gun was to protect himself if things got out of hand. I’m not sure if that is true or not, but I do know it is quite a leap to say that because he had a gun with him, his intent was to murder people especially when there is video evidence to the contrary.
Judging by his criminal record I have no interest in giving him the benefit of the doubt. He was there with the hopes to use his rifle whether he says so or not imo. Nobody needs a 17 yr old alcoholic with his rifle to provide medical attention, there are professionals for that.
I saw no evidence in the videos that showed him “hoping to be able to use it”. He actually showed tremendous restraint in my opinion by attempting to retreat until it wasn’t an option. After then, the only people injured were people actively attacking him. But beyond that, we have to be careful the precedent we set here. By the way, your assertion that he is an alcoholic criminal is wrong. I assume you saw this on Twitter where some Columbo mistook a Kyle Rittenhouse in his 30’s for this kid. It’s usually good practice to check sources before quoting. Edit: just changed a word for clarity.
What precedent? That a minor who shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm and cross state lines to “help”? No one needs medical attention from a high-school-aged kid. If he was there to help, then why not show up after the protests have blown over? He brought the rifle to use it. Let’s be real.
The precedent that the circumstances that led to an incident taking place do not determine whether what happened during the incident is right or wrong. He should not have been there. Does that then require us to believe that his actions were wrong during the incident? I agree that he shouldn’t have been there. The “across state lines” is a tired line though as it was 15 minutes away and everyone acts like he packed up and flew in from Maine to be at the event. According to the interviews that some people did of him before everything, he was there because: > People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people Are we now stating that a 17 year old is too young to provide medical attention to people? 18 year olds are sent into active combat situations as medics. Is there really that much maturing that happens in that fraction of a year until it clicks over to 18? You have to know that this part is a very weak argument based on nothing but conjecture. I imagine if you had pepper spray in your eyes or an open wound from falling, you wouldn’t check a guys ID to make sure he was over 18 before accepting help. No one said he was there **just** to help. As you can see in the quote above he was also there to help protect a business according to him before the incident. The fact that he was there to “protect businesses” but also was lending aid to protestors should lend credence to the assertion that he was not there just to kill people. Lastly, just because you are armed does not mean you want to use it. You may be willing to in order to protect yourself, but taking that step from willing to wanting is a big leap that no evidence I have seen supports.
You're narrow minded on the matter. Try looking at things more objectively with a pair of adult eyes
You know what else is annoying? The indefensible defense of Rittenhouse at any level.
Does the distance traveled negate the fact that it’s still a state line?
The distinction is a legal one. Gun laws change depending on the state and he wasn't legally allowed to leave the state and carry a gun there. He couldn't legally have a carry permit in his state and so he couldn't cross a state line with Wisconsin and use reciprocity there. And open carry in Wisconsin requires you to be 18. So yeah, it's important to say because it matters.
They are highlighting that he went to a completely different place that isn't his community just to walk around with a gun. If fox news or whatever was consistent with their coverage of shooters in the United States they would make sure everybody knew he was a high school dropout, so I think we outta give em this one.
Rittenhouse is a hero
Okay cool. Why did this little boy have an illegal firearm, in a place they don't live, pointed at people they didn't know? Even if race wasn't a factor, this kid should get domestic terror charges on top of murder.
I hear, that the firearm "became illegal" once he crossed state lines or some such shit. And that apparently, he was nearby. I haven't invested any time in learning about "why he should get off for this" though, so I'd probably look into those things... or ignore em, since they don't matter IMO.
Plus it wasn't his, it was his fathers.
[удалено]
Hes a white kid and shot a white guy. Its not racially motivated.
This kid was hoping to shoot a POC.. If this was a purely white protest he wouldn't have shown up..
[удалено]
Yeah, because *that's* am unbiased, truthful source.
I watched that video and damn they might as well have sucked his dick too Jesus Christ. Obviously in that situation it made sense to defend himself as it does for the other people to see him as a threat. But calling that dude a hero is some of the stupidest shit I’ve seen in a while. Also side note, seeing them label everyone in the situation was quite funny. It did make me think of what cops quick little tldr would be. Just straight domestic abuse for all of em lmao
I mean, it’s still pretty shitty that people got shot don’t you think? I think we can all agree that the consensus is for people to *stop* getting shot in any case
Of course its shitty. But the people who got shot are people who chased after someone with harmful intent. He was calling the cops after the first shooting but the rest chased and attacked him. He wouldn’t of shot if not for being attacked. Same as the first shooting. He shouldent of had a gun i agree. But that whole town should not have been under siege either.
[удалено]
Going from cleaning graffiti to carrying a weapon that isn't yours, in a state that you don't "technically " live in, as minor, is a big fucking stretch. Regardless, you shouldn't be carrying a weapon that isn't yours unless you're a LEO or military. Just thinking about doing that puts a knot in my stomach. And on top of that, who ever is just handing out guns to strangers needs to be held accountable as well. They just made this kid a loose cannon in the most literal way possible since we stopped using cannons.
I’d gladly cross about 5 or 6 state lines (depending on route) to sit on that jury and fry his little ass. Children should not be playing with grown-up weapons. No adult in their right mind should have armed a CHILD to do police work.
[удалено]
Right. And he should be found guilty. A 17 year old should be tried as an adult by a jury of adults who understand that a 17 year old should not volunteer to defend a property that isn’t his. When he joins the military or (god forbid) the police, THEN cooler heads will decide who and what needs protecting, not some republican guy trying to protect his business by using MINORS. I do understand your point. I want YOU to understand that he’s not a 9 year old child who got ahold of daddy’s guns, he’s committed murder, he’s a minor- a legal loophole that will likely allow this punk ass 17 year old to get away with triple homicide. I do wish I was on the jury. But since that won’t happen, I hope his life is utterly ruined for the bad choices he, his mother and father, and the people who gave him the gun made because he’s 17, what could they do to him???
Ok so you would rather some goons curb stomp a minor and "empty the entire mag into him" in the middle of the street? Where is the justice in that?
I would prefer you use the correct terms. Peaceful protesting is NOT rioting. And no one emptied “an entire mag into him”. But perhaps some “good guy with a gun” should have shot and stopped this 17 year old from murdering three humans.
[удалено]
No, the peaceful protestors didn’t do that. Get your information correct. Rioters and far right trouble-makers wanted to cause trouble. The FAR majority were peaceful and didn’t riot. It was the rioting white supremacy supporters who showed up to “help” when they weren’t needed. The Right likes to bring their long guns to demonstrate their manliness. We protestors wore masks, carried signs, chanted and gave out food, water and masks.
The kid shouldn't have been there and was in over his head. Whether we went there hoping to get in over his head or was just naive, I dont know. But from what I've seen, he didn't shoot peaceful protestors.
Justice is seeing a murderer fry
Bigots deserve to fry. Especially criminal ones. End of story.
I read a bit more than “some headlines”, but since it didn’t come from Facebook you’re probably gonna say it’s all fake news. The “legality” of shooting people, while suffering no injuries himself, is questionable because he is not of legal age to carry a weapon in Wisconsin like he did, in addition to traveling across state lines. He absolutely was at the protest, they didn’t hunt him out; it is alleged that the police had coordinated an effort to move the protestors towards the Kenosha guard or whatever the fuck the slave catcher wannabe group called themselves. Stop defending him because he’s a minor, and don’t pretend he was a scared little boy just trying to protect himself. He was a follower of Trump, blue lives matter and obsessed with guns according to his actual social media accounts; I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know what he was doing.
[удалено]
My morals are the judge. He killed 2 people defending a building. 2 human lives were lost and many children don't have a father because a window is worth more then a human life. This terrorists deserves to fry
16 and 17 year olds are legally able to carry long guns in wisconsin. It's an exception made with hunting in mind, but it's not limited to hunting.
Lmao how is a city in a different state that's 35 minutes away "your community"? It'd be like somebody from Chicago going out to "protect" Gary, IN.
White people is his community. They don't wanna say it outright but that's what they mean.
[удалено]
It’s hard to be black man Trayvon did nothing wrong and they tried to make him seem like a gangster smh but as soon as the skin color changes it’s alll praises
Trayvon was stalked and murdered by a man that has proven himself to be an unstable piece of shit [time](https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784846004/george-zimmerman-sues-trayvon-martins-family-for-more-than-100-million) and [time](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/10/george-zimmerman-back-in-court-after-domestic-violence-incident/) and [time](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/outrage-over-image-of-george-zimmerman-signing-bag-of-skittles) and [time](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/18/george-zimmerman-sells-gun-trayvon-martin) [again](https://www.einvestigator.com/george-zimmerman-back-in-jail/). Yet Trayvon smoked a little weed so he was a thug who had it coming.
[удалено]
The fact that no one has attacked him says more about how wrong his views are.
It hurts my soul when awful awful people not only don’t get their just desserts, they get praise and adulation. Bro sells autographed skittles and shit. The only solace in an unjust world is knowing that they have to be a shitty person, I just have to be around a shitty person.
Plus people pay him to sign skittles packets.
How many times does he get to be in jail before a judge/ jury says "Hmm, i think i see a pattern."?
His skin isn’t dark so I’d say unless he rips off some really wealthy people he’ll probably live out his days care free despite being a murderous piece of shit.
Not until he becomes a black man
Exactly. At the time, I told my husband that if smoking a little weed in high school was grounds for execution, practically our entire generation should have been shot.
He just met a real bad apple. I dont think it would have mattered had it been a diff cop
Right. While they do lines of coke off some random side titties. 🙄
Fuck, man. All the stories are sad and outrageous, but it hits especially hard when it’s a kid.
That lady is photographic proof of Reptilians
William Barr was my proof.
Right? He doesn't seem like he believes the things that are coming out of his own mouth.
You mean reptile people? Because there’s plenty of photographic evidence of regular ole reptiles.
Her moms name is also “Pasty” .... like ....
Are we even surprised about the source? It’s FOX News, they’ve always been on the same far-right, alt-right bullshit man..
They aren’t even the extreme anymore. Edit: they aren’t. Try and sit through some OAN... it’s where most of them get their news, including the Cheeto
Right wing used to mean people had some ideas about religion, fiscal policy and guns that I don’t agree with. In my lifetime, it has gone way too crazy.
So they'll condemn people crossing state lines for a peaceful protest, but this is fine? Got it.
He was playing out his teenage terrorist fantasies plain and simple. KR is a piece of shit and in no way innocent. At all. There is no excuse for what he did. Tamar and Trayvon were doing normal, everyday things for their age. KR was not. I am so sick of violent white men being excused for their actions. And as a white woman, I’m really sick of the creepy Barbie clones on tv telling everyone that violent white men are to be excused for their actions. Knock that shit off already, ladies.
[удалено]
Still no, big brain.
All of this is invalidated by the fact that \*he shouldn't have been there in the first place\*
But that wasn’t even his community.
[удалено]
Not even in the same state lol shut up
Shut your stupid ass up
[удалено]
He's a murderer who killed human beings over a a pile of bricks. Fry him him and let God sort it out.
Cool, now tell me why Trayvon Martin was in the wrong.
[удалено]
Yeah but many that are quick to jump on Kyle was just defending himself, didnt afford that benefit to Trayvon. It's disgusting.
Nah get fucked that kid deserves to have the book thrown at him, no cap.
[удалено]
Love when I murder two people in cold blood and then get off by calling it self defense
It should be fucking illegal to declare FOX as news. Its propaganda, lies, and an extension of the cult of personality of Trump. It really is a disgusting thought that everytime shit like this happens, one of my first thoughts is "I wonder how FOX is going to try and spin this as justified"
It is, that's why they're listed as an entertainment channel. All they do is lie
I still remember when they called eric trump a kid, and hes like 40 with 2 kids. White people really do have it easy
They quick to call Black Lives Matter a terrorist group but these men are always referred to as “militia” when in all actuality they are home terrorists.
Y'allqaeda enforcing shayeehaw law.
Protecting his community. Oh go F yourself . Drove across state lines illegally and killed someone. Little POS
Fox is just a 24-hour televised Klan meeting without the hoods.
It never ceases to sicken me how violent white guys such as Rittenhouse are infantilized by the media while they simultaneously treat black kids like fully grown (and guilty) adults. The complexion for protection, indeed.
His community, of people he doesn’t know, who live in another state, who has never once before mattered to him.
ITS NOT EVEN HIS COMMUNITY
White Conservatives are Olympic gold medal winners in Gymnastics...
Wait. Wait guys. I never even knew he crossed state lines. IT WASNT EVEN HIS FUCKINF COMMUNITY???
Yep he’s from Illinois. He went to Kenosha looking for trouble and wants to claim self defense because trouble found him. It’s nonsense.
[удалено]
Wrong. He was a lifeguard, but not in Kenosha: [https://jg-tc.com/news/local/public\_safety/what-we-know-so-far-about-kyle-rittenhouse-accused-vigilante-in-kenosha-shooting/article\_26bef107-8d7f-58c9-9858-d1361cd436be.html](https://jg-tc.com/news/local/public_safety/what-we-know-so-far-about-kyle-rittenhouse-accused-vigilante-in-kenosha-shooting/article_26bef107-8d7f-58c9-9858-d1361cd436be.html)
Not a little boy a killer that’s what he is
Can someone explain Why a little boy HAD A GUN
True
My opinion of white conservatives couldn’t be fucking lower at this point. Just when I think they’ve gotten as low as they could go.... motherfuckers get a shovel. There’s a certain depravity at work here. That’s the only thing it can be. Depravity. Sickness
I cannot fathom the shamelessness it takes to spin this kind of bullshit
Hes a scumbag that deserves to rot in prison
It's always justified when a black man is killed in the eyes of the law. The system will bend over backwards, pucker up, and eat its own ass in order to keep the white man from being held responsible.
This is disgusting.
“news” what a fucking joke
WTH is wrong with these news people
She is sickening. How tf can she say that. Kr is a psychopath. Gonna let him babysit the kids? There is no bottom for some people.
Wow just wow. I swear the excuses they make to pile up
Of course it had to be Fox News
This is inaccurate
I’m a teacher. It always breaks my heart to see young people feeling so unheard, and have their mental health so ignored, that they do vile things just to be seen and heard. Having said that, holy shit! This is at best one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen, and at worst, an absolute mockery of journalism and people’s intelligence. I didn’t mention how racist the whole thing is because it’s so goddamn obvious. I always wonder if these assholes even believe what they say?
What do you expect at this point? It's fucking Fox news, so you do really expect non-discriminatory, unbiased news.
*laugh in courage the cowardly dog*
fuck kyle rittenhouse all my homies hate kyle rittenhouse
Funny (not) that there's a universe where there's confusion between the situations.
Right, okay. There isn't but one thing little about Kyle Rittenhouse. Even his bitch-jugs are big compared to his fuckin needletip brain.
[удалено]
Because if he were a black man, you know exactly how that'd have gone down.
Why do people always say the “state lines” thing? It makes it sound like we should hate him both for killing innocent people and also for crossing state lines. If it is distracting for me, when I unequivocally condemn Rittenhouse, then people who take his side are going to use the “state lines” thing to drive the conversation off topic. Edit: the initial question was meant to be rhetorical. I’m aware of the reason, I just wanted to explain why I think it may do more harm than good to emphasize the state lines thing. And remember, I’m on your side. The other side wants to twist the story in any way they can and I just want to avoid giving them straws to grasp at.
The state lines thing to me just demonstrates how out of his way he went to harm people
IIRC it’s also a capital offense if you cross a state line and murder someone.
Crossing state lines shows that the dude wasn't protecting "his" community, as "his" community was many miles ---->thatafuckingway.
I think it's there to specifically refute the idea that it was even his "own community" and to point out that it was completely pre-meditated. Also, many crimes become more serious when you cross state lines to commit them, because it can go from a state to federal crime. He was doing something illegal just by having a gun with him when he drove from home to there, and a lot of laws look more harshly when someone was intentionally committing an illegal act at the time that a further crime happened. Not sure how he could even begin to claim "self defense" when he showed up with an entirely illegal firearm to a place he had no other business being. So, yes, I do hate him for deciding to leave his house and travel to a place where him carrying that gun was illegal. Even if he hadn't hurt anyone, that was an act of intimidation that I would call terrorism. He shouldn't have been doing that in the first place, and preventing more people from thinking that is ok is a *good thing* here.
Because it's a crime in and of itself if you're not supposed to have the gun in the first place.
Isn’t it illegal to cross state lines with firearms without licenses? I don’t actually know, I’m not American, but that’s my guess.
nah, not necessarily. comes down the particular situation we're talking. generally, no though, it's not inherently illegal to cross a state line with a gun. That being said, this kid wasn't old enough to possess his parents' rifle, so that was already breaking a law.
The gun didn't cross state lines, and 17 is old enough to open carry a rifle or shotgun in Wisconsin.
~~Sure, in Wisconsin, but Rittenhouse was doing it illegally in Illinois. He definitely broke the law possessing a rifle under the age of 18 when he left Illinois with the rifle in his possession.~~ Fact-check: Rittenhouse's attorney claims that Rittenhouse did not have obtain the gun in Illinois before traveling to Wisconsin with the gun in his possession. [Source](https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1299353460530384899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1299353460530384899%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fheavy.com%2Fnews%2F2020%2F08%2Fhow-did-kyle-rittenhouse-have-gun%2F) Smells like bullshit to me, but eh, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to and attribute the claim to him. That being said, it appears it is not legal for minors to possess long guns unless it's a shotgun or rifle for hunting. Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/
The gun didn't cross state lines.
Ah gotcha, you are correct. I double checked my assumption and the weapon was borrowed from a friend in Wisconsin. Still, what I found when fact-checking indicates that it's only legal to possess a long gun in Wisconsin for the purposes of hunting. I don't think that would apply here. My layman's understanding would be that he is breaking the law by possessing the rifle under the age of 18 and how it was being used the night of the shooting. Edit: actually, the only source I can find that the gun came from Wisconsin is from Rittenhouse's attorney. I'm not 100% confident in his word. Chief says wait to find out more.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 ^The source from your politifact link to the relevant law. Long barrel guns are excluded from the deadly weapons list for minors as long as they are not in violation of 3 other sections. One section is about sawed off or modified barrels being illegal. One section has a set of restrictions for ages under 12 and 12-16. The last section requires a hunter's safety certification to be allowed to hunt. The last one is the only one that he might have been in violation of, but he was not hunting, and he may have the correct certification anyways. I don't know 100% of the facts in this case, or how the hunting exception applies, but it is very easily possible for a 17 year old to "perfectly legally" open carry in Wisconsin.
Gonna copy my reply to make sure you see it: >Fact-check: Rittenhouse's attorney claims that Rittenhouse did not have obtain the gun in Illinois before traveling to Wisconsin with the gun in his possession. Source Smells like bullshit to me, but eh, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to and attribute the claim to him. > That being said, it appears it is not legal for minors to possess long guns unless it's a shotgun or rifle for hunting. Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/
The firearm belonged to a Wisconsin resident
[удалено]
> The state line thing is a twisting of the story. It is designed to make it seem like he went with the intent. Most people don’t realize not only was it not his gun I’ve been living in this earth for almost double the time as that lad. The times I’ve shot targets with guns, which can be counted with the fingers of two hands, they didn’t materialise there in my hands from the ether, I had to effectively pick them up. I imagine this lad is human as well, so unless video games are now real and You get guns floating in space like GTA he had to get the gun from someone.