Kyle Rittenhouse Acquitted on All Counts

The expected has occurred.

Kyle Rittenhouse,, accused of shooting three people during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin last year, waits for a motion hearing, Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2021, in Kenosha, Wis. (Mark Hertzberg/Pool Photo via AP)

BREAKING FROM AP:

Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges Friday after pleading self-defense in the deadly Kenosha shootings that became a flashpoint in the nation’s debate over guns, vigilantism and racial injustice.

Rittenhouse, 18, cried and hugged one of his attorneys upon hearing the verdict.

He had been charged with homicide, attempted homicide and reckless endangering after killing two men and wounding a third with an AR-style semi-automatic rifle during a tumultuous night of protests over police violence against Black people in the summer of 2020. The former police youth cadet is white, as were those he shot.

The jury, which appeared to be overwhelmingly white, deliberated for close to 3 1/2 days.

Rittenhouse could have gotten life in prison if found guilty on the most serious charge, first-degree intentional homicide, or what some other states call first-degree murder.

As the verdict drew near, Gov. Tony Evers pleaded for calm and said 500 National Guard members would be ready for duty in Kenosha if needed.

As I noted in late October before the trial kicked off,

While I am not a lawyer, I fully expect Rittenhouse to win here. First, the charges are simply absurdly high: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional reckless homicide are simply not going to stick when there is any question as to whether he feared for his life.

[…]

Wandering around the scene of a protest brandishing an AR-15 is surely provocative. And, since Rittenhouse was a minor at the time, it was illegal under both Wisconsin (where he committed the act) and Illinois (where he lived). And, since he crossed state lines to do it, it was likely a Federal crime as well.

But Rittenhouse almost certainly regained his privilege of self-defense given the sequence of events. 

[…]

Police should have arrested Rittenhouse long before it got to this. But, with an angry horde chasing him, yelling at him, and taking swings at him, he was almost certainly in fear for his safety. I just can’t imagine a jury convicting him of homicide, let alone first-degree murder, under these circumstances.

The prosecution absolutely didn’t help themselves in their conduct of the case and managed to get the weapons charges, which were not in doubt, thrown out. There just wasn’t anything left. [And it should be noted that I misunderstood the facts of the case when I wrote the above: Rittenhouse didn’t travel with the rifle across state lines but had a friend buy it for him in Wisconsin.]

Rittenhouse isn’t a hero. He’s a punk kid who went out looking for trouble. But he was legally entitled to use deadly force to defend himself under the circumstances.

FILED UNDER: Crime, Law and the Courts
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Kathy says:

    I wonder how much he and his accomplice mother can be sued for.

    ReplyReply
    5
  2. Scott says:

    Seems to me a victim’s right to self defense is of no value. Same argument being used in the Ahmaud Arbery trial and was basically used after George Zimmerman stalked and killed Trayvon Martin.

    ReplyReply
    18
  3. HelloWorld! says:

    God save us all. I now have the right to put myself in dangerous situations, bring my shotgun, and randomly shoot people “I think” are committing crimes, because I am a citizen cowboy protector of the law! Time to get to work and clean these streets up…

    ReplyReply
    3
  4. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    Again, this is Wisconsin. The charges were, in my opinion, made for the purpose of overcharging in order to get an acquittal. I hope that the ADA prosecuting the case is recognized for his service but suspect he’ll probably get thrown under the bus for being “ineffective” eventually.

    ReplyReply
    2
  5. James Joyner says:

    @Kathy: My knowledge of civil law is considerably less than my knowledge of criminal law, which is less than my knowledge of Constitutional law. Still, I don’t see that the victims have a claim here: they attacked and cornered Rittenhouse. One struck him with a deadly weapon (a skateboard) and another brandished a firearm at him. In those circumstances I, too, would have shot and killed them.

    @Scott: @HelloWorld!: The three men had no cause to chase down Rittenhouse. It was a damn fool thing to do and it got them killed.

    ReplyReply
    7
  6. Hal_10000 says:

    I think it’s the right verdict. Rittenhouse was a fool who had no business being there. But of the people he shot, one threatened and chased him; one was hitting him in the head with a skateboard and other pointed a gun at him. Reminded a lot of the Trayvon Martin case. And I suspect his life will go the same way Zimmerman’s has.

    ReplyReply
    7
  7. CSK says:

    Well, I suppose Rittenhouse is now free to pursue that internship opportunity with Matt Gaetz.

    ReplyReply
    8
  8. HelloWorld! says:

    @James Joyner: No cause? A citizen cowboy walking around with a gun? A guy who intentionally put himself at that place, at that time? I think the guys chasing Rittenhouse are the heroes. Thinking Rittenhouse is justified is moral dementia.

    ReplyReply
    9
  9. Gustopher says:

    Rittenhouse isn’t a hero. He’s a punk kid who went out looking for trouble. But he was legally entitled to use deadly force to defend himself under the circumstances.

    He will be hailed as a hero on the right nonetheless.

    And the circumstances clearly involve his skin tone and his political alignment. He created the rest of the circumstances. It’s a bad law that lets this little shit off.

    And the lack of effective consequences is going to be an encouragement to more fucking idiots like him.

    ReplyReply
    15
  10. Scott says:

    @James Joyner: I guess I don’t understand the logic. Where does one’s self defense (or stand your ground or whatever) ends and another’s begins. Seems to me you should have the right to defend your life (by any means necessary) against someone who has the deadlier weapon.

    ReplyReply
    2
  11. MarkedMan says:

    @James Joyner: No cause to chase him? In the case of the second victims he was attempting to disarm an active shooter who had just killed someone. Bad judgement, sure. But he was attempting to stop a gunman with an assault weapon who was firing into a crowd.

    ReplyReply
    13
  12. James Joyner says:

    @Scott: @MarkedMan: Rittenhouse didn’t shoot anyone—so far as I’m aware from news accounts, he didn’t even point his weapon at anyone—until he was chased down by these dudes. One grabbed him and smacked him in the head with a skateboard, knocking him to the ground. Another was pointing a handgun at him. He was supposed to, what, wait to see if they killed him?

    Again, he shouldn’t have been in that situation. He should have been arrested by the cops rather than hailed as an auxiliary. (Which, @Kathy, is where I would guess the civil lawsuits would be most profitably be aimed.) But, having come to that point, he had a right to self-defense and the prosecution grossly overcharged. They really should have focused on reckless endangerment and weapons offenses.

    ReplyReply
    14
  13. dazedandconfused says:

    @James Joyner:

    He was at significant risk of getting nailed for reckless endangerment for running into a riot alone with an AR15, but the murder charges were shaky. Even though the second two might have thought they were taking down an active shooter, it was plain the kid was running towards the cops, whose line of vehicles was clearly visible less than 100 yards away. However stupid, from going into the riot to leaving the first shooting scene with a rifle, he still technically had the right to defend himself, at least to the extent of being easy to defend in court.

    The prosecution seems to have gone mainly for the murder raps though. Had they focused on just getting reckless endangerment they might have gotten it. IMHO.

    ReplyReply
    4
  14. JKB says:

    @Kathy:

    Probably nothing. Many states preclude civil action for the lawful use of self defense.

    On the fun side. Biden defamed Kyle in a campaign ad and thus is at risk of civil defamation suit for calling him a white supremacist in the absence of any evidence.

    ReplyReply
    1
  15. Stormy Dragon says:

    The prosecution absolutely didn’t help themselves in their conduct of the case and managed to get the weapons charges, which were not in doubt, thrown out.

    These prosecutors aren’t any more competent in any of the other cases they’ve tried. It’s just that most defendants can’t afford a high-end legal team so the prosecutors normally get the conviction anyway.

    ReplyReply
    4
  16. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    And thus the de-evolution of our streets, back to the 19th century wild wild west and shootouts at the ok corral, continues apace.

    ReplyReply
  17. JKB says:

    @MarkedMan:

    The SCOTUS ruled long ago, that you cannot use deadly force to stop someone from leaving, even a shooting, even if you KNOW their actions were illegal. Many states deny this specifically to the non-law enforcement, while permitting law enforcement to use deadly force only if they reasonably believe the individual is a credible life threatening threat to someone else and there is no other way of stopping the, such as more officers arriving. Well-trained police will not use deadly force to stop someone escaping except in extreme situations, such as a known spree killer that credibly is leaving to go after other victims like when someone kills various households of their family.

    Those that chased Rittenhouse after he stopped Rosenbaum, while Rittenhouse was running away, to the police, used deadly force in violation of the law in an attempt to stop him from escaping.

    ReplyReply
    3
  18. Stormy Dragon says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl:

    And thus the de-evolution of our streets, back to the 19th century wild wild west and shootouts at the ok corral, continues apace.

    Just want to point out that during the “wild west” most towns had laws banning being armed in public within town limits. In fact, the OK Corral happened because people weren’t abiding by the town ban on carrying firearms in public and the local law enforcement came by to make them.

    ReplyReply
    10
  19. Stormy Dragon says:

    @James Joyner:

    (Which, @Kathy, is where I would guess the civil lawsuits would be most profitably be aimed.)

    They’ll all be dismissed

    Warren v. District of Columbia: the police have no specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens

    See, for example, Lozito v. New York City where Lozito was stabbed literally right in front of police, who did nothing to aid him and the case was dismissed.

    ReplyReply
  20. grumpy realist says:

    ….overcharging….

    Also, everyone on all sides seems to have done stupid aggressive things.

    ReplyReply
    1
  21. Kurtz says:

    @James Joyner:

    Still, I don’t see that the victims have a claim here: they attacked and cornered Rittenhouse. One struck him with a deadly weapon (a skateboard) and another brandished a firearm at him.

    The guy who brandished the gun would be the proverbial “good guy with a gun” intervening in an active shooter scenario. But the protest context was presented a better angle.

    ReplyReply
  22. James Joyner says:

    @Kurtz:

    The guy who brandished the gun would be the proverbial “good guy with a gun” intervening in an active shooter scenario.

    This is, frankly, silly. An “active shooter” is a guy walking around killing random innocents. Rittenhouse, for all his many flaws, was not that. He was a Billy Badass Wannabe walking around with a firearm who was cornered, attacked, and defended himself after fleeing from his aggressors.

    ReplyReply
    5
  23. de stijl says:

    I expected this outcome.

    It doesn’t make it hurt less.

    A goddamn kid shows up out of nowhere and shoots people because of some distorted misguided principles.

    What are we becoming? Fuck me!

    ReplyReply
    4
  24. just nutha says:

    @CSK: I’ll just note that the person who commented yesterday that Gaetz wants to be on record as having offered an internship to Rittenhouse but has no intention of actually hiring him. (Unless he ban) Nope, not gonna go there today. Just for today, I’m going to be a better person. (Maybe, I’ll be able to stretch that to two days tomorrow. Who can tell?)

    ReplyReply
    1
  25. HelloWorld! says:

    @James Joyner: Haha. Yes, thats the legal defense. We get the world we collectively want. I can’t wait to hear your views on the Avery acquittal next week.

    ReplyReply
    3
  26. Andy says:

    My view is that everyone involved in this incident is a fucking moron.

    If one willingly goes into a situation where you know a lot of people will be armed, where violence and anger are endemic, where the police are absent or not giving a fuck, then I don’t have much sympathy if one’s bad choices lead to bad consequences. It takes two to tango and if you play stupid games, expect to win stupid prizes.

    Maybe it’s because I’m older now and no longer young, dumb, and full of your-know-what and testosterone, that I can clearly see how stupid it is to go into that situation, much less armed. And it is even more stupid to chase down an armed man-child to do – what, exactly?

    That Rittenhouse isn’t guilty of 1st-degree murder was obvious from the beginning. The political pressure to overcharge him and attempt to collect his head on that charge in the name of justice was always stupid and doomed to failure. And it has probably so poisoned the well, that Rittenhouse is likely now safe from the lesser offenses that were dropped.

    ReplyReply
    7
  27. just nutha says:

    @James Joyner: ” They really should have focused on reckless endangerment and weapons offenses.”

    Certainly true, but how else are you going to get the “tough on crime/domestic terrorism” cachet you want AND the acquittal your “tough on [black] crime/domestic terrorism” constituents are going to want except by overcharging?

    ReplyReply
    2
  28. Chris says:

    It’s like the pure energy alien entity from Star Trek, Season 3/Episode 7, has found Earth and is reeking havoc on us all. I think we need a good dose of Kirk and Kang laughter right about now.

    ReplyReply
  29. CSK says:

    @just nutha:
    It was a sardonic joke on my part.

    ReplyReply
  30. dazedandconfused says:

    @James Joyner:
    It’s complicated when there is someone with a rifle fleeing the scene of a shooting. An officer has the right to use lethal force to stop a fleeing suspected felon in this scenario. The people that attacked him fleeing the scene of the first shooting, had they killed him, also had a viable legal defense. They too might have been found by a jury to have been merely defending themselves or others. Chaos is chaos.

    ReplyReply
    2
  31. Kathy says:

    @dazedandconfused:

    the lesson here is to kill the white idiot with a gun before he kills you.

    ReplyReply
    4
  32. Dude Kembro says:

    The bigger picture: Rittenterrorist was part of a nationwide effort by Trump’s Boogaloo Boys, Patriot Prayer, Proud Boys, and Oath Keeper terrorists to infiltrate protests, incite violence, and kill — to frame BLM and protestors. This wrong-headed vigilante verdict sets a very bad precedent and will live in infamy.

    There were plenty of people with guns there that night, yet the only people injured and shot there were injured and shot by Kyle Rittenhouse. That indicates the only people who needed self-defense were those Kyle Rittenhouse menaced.

    We’re being asked to believe three guys armed with nothing (Boomer af to claim a skateboard is a “deadly weapon” come one man) just randomly picked a fight with a guy with an AR-15? Who with common sense buys that bs?

    I suspect had the biased, undignified jurist allowed the prosecution to magnify videos to prove their allegation Rittenhouse was brandishing his gun in a threatening way, it would have been even more clear that the self-defense claim belonged to his victims (can we call them that, Judge Schroeder?).

    There is video of Rittenhouse beating up a girl in Kenosha, video of him saying he wanted to go there to kill people (also blocked by the judge). He then hooked up with the Proud Boys and did exactly that. No, Rittenhouse not just “stupid” and a “moron”: he’s a violent, dangerous, radical right thug.

    He provoked this incident, and were he black or Muslim or anything bit white, few would dare to claim he had any right to self-defense. Sounds about white that the old yt men here — like the old yt man in the courtroom — is making him the victim.

    ReplyReply
    9
  33. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Stormy Dragon:
    True…but law enforcement was so limited and spotty across huge territories that it was STILL open season for outlaws to do outlaw stuff.
    I used to live in Telluride, where Butch Cassidy robbed his first bank. $20K in 1889, which is upwards of $1/2M today.
    Anyway…my point remains…

    ReplyReply
  34. matt bernius says:

    @Kathy:

    The more one looks at the criminal justice system, the more one finds problems (and the less one finds justice).

    Yup. There’s a reason why folks working in the reform space increasingly refer to it as the “criminal legal system.”

    If you are upset, tonight’s a good night to either log off… or take your frustrations and channel it into donations to a local group or actually do some research about how you can work for change IRL versus posting your frustration online and then going on with life. At a minimum, spend a few bucks and buy something like “We do this till we free us” — it’s currently on sale.

    https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/1664-we-do-this-til-we-free-us

    ReplyReply
    3
  35. Scott F. says:

    @James Joyner:

    This is, frankly, silly. An “active shooter” is a guy walking around killing random innocents.

    Please don’t call this “silly.” This is not nearly as clear cut as you are trying to make it.

    How many random innocents should Rosenbaum and Huber have waited to seen killed before they could know with any confidence that the kid with the assault rifle wasn’t dangerous? Would one have been enough? What did you ask about Rittenhouse? “What were they supposed do, wait to see if he killed them?”

    It does not scan that Rittenhouse’s fear for his safety was reasonable and while the victim’s fear for their own safety was not.

    ReplyReply
    10
  36. Mister Bluster says:

    GOP Lawmakers Fall Over Each Other to Offer Jobs to Kyle Rittenhouse
    “Kyle, if you want an internship reach out to me,” Rep. Madison Cawthorn wrote in the caption of an Instagram story on Friday.
    Cawthorn extended his offer on Instagram, and added a call for his followers to carry weapons. “Be armed, be dangerous, and be moral,” said the MAGA lawmaker from North Carolina.

    ReplyReply
  37. wr says:

    @Kurtz: “The guy who brandished the gun would be the proverbial “good guy with a gun” intervening in an active shooter scenario. ”

    Yes, but he was a lib, so he doesn’t count as a good guy, just fodder.

    ReplyReply
    6
  38. Dude Kembro says:

    @James Joyner:

    This is, frankly, silly. An “active shooter” is a guy walking around killing random innocents.

    Girl-beating killer Kyle Rittenterrorist, weeks before his crime: “Bro, I wish I had my fucking AR. I’d start shooting rounds at them.”

    He then hooked up with the Proud Boys, took his AR, and shot and killed people.

    It’s, frankly, bizarre to suggest that when a violent thug shows up with an AR-15 menacing a crowd, you wait until he starts murdering people to try to stop him.

    So when James Holmes, armed with a weapon of war, was in the parking lot of that movie theater in Aurora, Colorado before going in to murder dozens, had he instead been chased and hit by a guy with a skateboard, it’s (non active shooter lol) James Holmes who’d have the valid self-defense claim? Is this what passes for critical thinking in America? Good grief, too much of our country is losing the plot morally, legally, and logically.

    Again: the people killed in Kenosha that might were killed by Kyle Rittenhouse. Nobody else but him needed to use deadly force to defend themselves from random strangers. Imagine that.

    ReplyReply
    7
  39. de stijl says:

    Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death comes to mind. We are dying.

    If we cannot convict a guy who was clearly there eager to kill on misguided principal….

    I am bereft.

    We are fucking damned. We pissed it away. Missed our chance.

    The bad guys won.

    ReplyReply
    2
  40. Gustopher says:

    I think we need zealous prosecutors charging people for violating the free speech rights of others by bringing an assault rifle to a protest — because of the implicit threat that open carry represents. Because, fundamentally, the “speech” of carrying a gun at a protest is “I could kill you at any time I want” — and that really shouldn’t be protected speech.

    It probably won’t be upheld with the current courts, but if the price of open carry at protests is a night in jail and a pile of lawyer bills, it’s going to have an effect.

    And if the Nation of Islam were to go back to armed demonstrations, I think we could sway the current courts.

    ReplyReply
    3
  41. Kurtz says:

    @James Joyner:

    Bullshit. Guy gets shot. Others come to render first aid to victim. Shooter uses cell phone to call police and report he was attacked…oh wait, no, he calls a friend, and decides to flee the scene with his gun.

    The NYT video includes two people–one a combat veteran armed with an AR-type weapon and an (actual, as opposed to lying) paramedic armed with a pistol–explain their perspective of seeing a person fleeing the scene of a shooting with a gun.

    Your definition of active shooter is, frankly, silly.

    An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area

    Source: FBI

    You’re adding “random.” But I respect you enough to let you figure out why you feel the need to modify a definition in this case. T 0here have been plenty of active shooters who changed locations before killing more people.

    Anyway, Rittenhouse acted irresponsibly. Others, who did not see the first shooting, rushed to stop the shooter who was running away, still armed.

    If Rittenhouse’s criminal liability turns on his state of mind, then his second and third victims also deserve the same courtesy even if the law doesn’t recognize it.

    ReplyReply
    9
  42. just nutha says:

    @CSK: My mistake. My Sardono 5000 must be in need of a check up. Maybe I should upgrade to the new model rather than spend the effort on a repair.

    ReplyReply
    1
  43. gVOR08 says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    I hope that the ADA prosecuting the case is recognized for his service but suspect he’ll probably get thrown under the bus for being “ineffective” eventually.

    I suspect it’s more like the DA gets re-elected and the ADA prosecutor is either the DA’s buddy and gets quietly rewarded by the DA or, more likely, goes back to being the sucker in the office who couldn’t get out of the case after the DA deliberately overcharged.

    ReplyReply
    2
  44. matt bernius says:

    @Kathy:

    I wonder how much he and his accomplice mother can be sued for.

    @James Joyner & @JKB are right on that issue, the law doesn’t allow for any sort of civil suit under these cases.

    ReplyReply
    1
  45. gVOR08 says:

    A dweeb kid got an almost assault rifle illegally, put himself in a dangerous situation, and shot three people, and our legal system thinks that’s OK. We’re all waiting to see if the Supremes throw stare decisive to the winds and overturn Roe. In the earlier post James points out that most criminal defendants, without benefit of conservative legal entrepreneurs, for all practical purposes lose their right to trial.

    Quoting Dickens, “the law is a ass.” IANAL and know nothing of legal history. Are the legal systems of Napoleonic Code countries as fucked up as ours?

    ReplyReply
    1
  46. CSK says:

    @just nutha:
    Quite all right. It’s sometimes hard to tell online when someone is being sardonic.

    ReplyReply
  47. Stormy Dragon says:

    @gVOR08:

    Are the legal systems of Napoleonic Code countries as fucked up as ours?

    Do you consider the court system in Louisiana to be significantly better than the rest of the country?

    ReplyReply
  48. Kurtz says:

    @Gustopher:

    I think we need zealous prosecutors charging people for violating the free speech rights of others by bringing an assault rifle to a protest — because of the implicit threat that open carry represents.

    I’m not sure how to deal with it, but I do want to post agreement with the underlying idea. The mere presence of a gun changes the dynamics of a situation.

    Our system hasn’t found an effective way to deal with two different rights that come into conflict. Moreover, whatever one thinks of the legal distinction between speech and action, open carry as a form of counter/protest shows, at the very least, how messy drawing a bright line can be.

    ReplyReply
    3
  49. Gustopher says:

    @Kurtz: You’re also often forbidden from bringing all sorts of “riot gear” short of firearms to a lot of places. Signs have to be supported by cardboard tubes, as wooden sticks can be used as weapons, etc.

    We are giving guns a special right that halberds, swords and trebuchets do not get.

    (Also, concealed carry in Washington State is limited to guns — a sword cane would be illegal.)

    ReplyReply
    3
  50. Thomm says:

    @Gustopher: as a crippled ex fencer, the sword cane rule exists in all states to my recollection and come from old ant-deuling laws. Can actually get more time than an illegally concealed gun.

    ReplyReply
    2
  51. liberal capitalist says:

    @de stijl:

    I expected this outcome.

    It doesn’t make it hurt less.

    A goddamn kid shows up out of nowhere and shoots people because of some distorted misguided principles.

    What are we becoming? Fuck me!

    The open-carry white-savior fantasies have gotten a power-up.

    Apparently, it will have to get worse before it gets better.

    ReplyReply
    3
  52. de stijl says:

    @liberal capitalist:

    Gun control laws got passed in California because Black Panthers were openly carrying.

    I am not the world’s dumbest person. Maybe left-leaning and / or marginalized people should take full advantage of these new laws and openly carry now too. Flip it and reverse it.

    How did we get here? It is so sad.

    ReplyReply
    3
  53. Modulo Myself says:

    This wasn’t a surprise. The whole situation was just fucked. The police who let this child walk around with a gun should never have jobs again. Obviously, not going to happen, but what are you thinking? Kyle Rittenhouse may have talked about wanting to kill shoplifters, but had the police got him off the street or had some adult in his life kept from going, he would not have killed 2 people. And I’m willing to bet that the 2 people he killed would not have killed anybody. Life would have gone on.

    This was his doing, and his supporters aren’t his friends. When people are freed from prison after 20 years because their case was overturned, people are happy even with the sorrow of being locked up for a long time. They aren’t ranting on twitter about the media, the left, progressives, defund the police. This kid already has that dumb Covington guy reaching out to him. It’s like reality tv or a sex tape from the oughts. His best bet as a human being is to disappear completely and flee what he did.

    ReplyReply
    3
  54. senyordave says:

    @Modulo Myself: Rittenhouse was wearing a t shirt that said “free as fuck” back in Jan of 2021, so I don’t think there is going to be any deep self examination of what transpired on August 25, 2020. His mother seems to feel no regrets about her role, so it will probably be good times in the Rittenhouse household. Maybe Tucker Carlson and J D Vance can drop by and they’ll all have a big laugh about the two dead people.

    ReplyReply
    1
  55. Kurtz says:

    @de stijl:

    NFAC.

    CLS and CRT speak to how well that can work out in practice.

    I’m not taking a position on the charges brought against the NFAC leader charged with aiming his gun at police snipers. I skimmed some positions taken my a couple attorneys, and just haven’t don’t enough thinking on the subject.

    The one that made the most sense to me was one who argued that the police on the roof didn’t respond how one would expect them to if an AR had been pointed at them. But that can cut both ways for both sides in that case. I’m doing my best to avoid the prior pitfall.

    ReplyReply
  56. dazedandconfused says:
  57. de stijl says:

    @dazedandconfused:

    We have to do something. We are on a bad path.

    ReplyReply
    1
  58. Modulo Myself says:

    @senyordave:

    Yeah, and the other guy in the photo looks about 45. His supporters are all weird older men–your basic Proud Boy trash. The kid is drawing his inspiration from ideology aimed at aging dipshits who can tell you the age of consent in every state. I have a very very small degree of sympathy for a fatherless racist loser in 2020 who got sucked into Trump-era garbage aimed at guys stuck in their basements who haven’t been touched (without paying for it) in decades.

    ReplyReply
  59. Scotty says:

    @Kathy: Kyle will sue the biased leftist media who misrepresented him every chance they got.

    ReplyReply
    2
  60. Scotty says:

    @Scott: Arbery has something in common with Rittenhouse… they were both trying to flee from their attackers. Hopefully Arbery’s killers will be convicted. Not the same case at all!

    ReplyReply
    1
  61. Scotty says:

    @Dude Kembro: how ignorant to write: “Boomer af to claim a skateboard is a “deadly weapon”
    Lookie here:
    http://abc7.com/news/man-dies-after-blow-to-head-with-skateboard-during-fight-in-santa-ana/1098183/

    ReplyReply
  62. SC_Birdflyte says:

    While I recognize that the verdict is defensible under the law as written, I still have no sympathy for this young dumbazz. I hope he learns a lesson (although I doubt he will). He thinks he’s bulletproof, but if he shows up (armed or not) at some future disturbance, someone else could fabricate a case that he threatened them and blow him away.

    ReplyReply
    2
  63. john430 says:

    @de stijl: What are we becoming? Fuck me!

    Bend over, here it comes. He was tried by a jury of his peers in an open court. That’s how we do things.

    ReplyReply
    1

Speak Your Mind

*