The images are photoshopped? You are delusional. You can google any news source you want about the 2020 Kenosha unrest and you will find such images. Where is the evidence that he gloated about murdering protesters the night before?
December 14, 2025 at 12:35 AM
The images are photoshopped? You are delusional. You can google any news source you want about the 2020 Kenosha unrest and you will find such images. Where is the evidence that he gloated about murdering protesters the night before?
It was the third night of rioting which caused $51m in damage to Kenosha. There was no evidence at all to support this notion that he was "hunting". That is just emotive nonsense. His belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable.
December 13, 2025 at 8:32 PM
It was the third night of rioting which caused $51m in damage to Kenosha. There was no evidence at all to support this notion that he was "hunting". That is just emotive nonsense. His belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable.
It wasn't Rittenhouse who had torched the place or assaulted business owners. nypost.com/2020/08/26/e...
December 13, 2025 at 10:07 AM
It wasn't Rittenhouse who had torched the place or assaulted business owners. nypost.com/2020/08/26/e...
Why did he bring one? Because it was the third night of violent rioting at which business owners had already been assaulted and their livelihoods torched. There were a lot of people, including leftist protesters, armed with rifles and other firearms for their own protection.
December 12, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Why did he bring one? Because it was the third night of violent rioting at which business owners had already been assaulted and their livelihoods torched. There were a lot of people, including leftist protesters, armed with rifles and other firearms for their own protection.
He stood in front of a jury who gave their judgment on whether his conduct fell within the boundaries of self-defense, as defined by state law, or was unlawful murder. He only had to reasonably believe that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
December 12, 2025 at 8:08 PM
He stood in front of a jury who gave their judgment on whether his conduct fell within the boundaries of self-defense, as defined by state law, or was unlawful murder. He only had to reasonably believe that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
It was self-defense if his belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable. That isn't an opinion, it is just a fact, and it is really the only pertinent fact.
December 11, 2025 at 6:40 PM
It was self-defense if his belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable. That isn't an opinion, it is just a fact, and it is really the only pertinent fact.
That is what the jury concluded. That extract, taken from WI s.939.48 “Self-defense and defense of others” was judged to have applied to Rittenhouse’s circumstances.
December 10, 2025 at 7:05 AM
That is what the jury concluded. That extract, taken from WI s.939.48 “Self-defense and defense of others” was judged to have applied to Rittenhouse’s circumstances.
There are no mental gymnastics about it. He stood in front of a jury of his peers and they duly gave their verdict on whether he had committed the crime of unlawful murder or had acted lawfully in accordance with WI s.939.48.
December 9, 2025 at 8:10 PM
There are no mental gymnastics about it. He stood in front of a jury of his peers and they duly gave their verdict on whether he had committed the crime of unlawful murder or had acted lawfully in accordance with WI s.939.48.
The Khindri brothers did not ultimately hire anybody. They had reportedly promised their employee Nick Smith a few dollars for guarding the car lots, but that money never materialized. It was Smith who had recruited Rittenhouse and Dominick Black to assist voluntarily on behalf of the owners.
December 1, 2025 at 7:53 AM
The Khindri brothers did not ultimately hire anybody. They had reportedly promised their employee Nick Smith a few dollars for guarding the car lots, but that money never materialized. It was Smith who had recruited Rittenhouse and Dominick Black to assist voluntarily on behalf of the owners.
Just to note, the three individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, for which he was found not guilty on the grounds of self-defense, were all white.
November 28, 2025 at 7:58 PM
Just to note, the three individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, for which he was found not guilty on the grounds of self-defense, were all white.
That exception is covered under WI s.948.60 3(a) which did not apply to him. Neither did 3(b) as he was not in the military. It was 3(c) which was ruled to apply. The three exceptions are separate and independent of each other. A person under 18 only has to meet the criteria of any one of them.
November 27, 2025 at 11:19 AM
That exception is covered under WI s.948.60 3(a) which did not apply to him. Neither did 3(b) as he was not in the military. It was 3(c) which was ruled to apply. The three exceptions are separate and independent of each other. A person under 18 only has to meet the criteria of any one of them.
He also was not in possession of a firearm which was of a size that could be concealed. The prohibition is referring to pistols and handguns, not long guns like rifles or shotguns.
November 27, 2025 at 8:45 AM
He also was not in possession of a firearm which was of a size that could be concealed. The prohibition is referring to pistols and handguns, not long guns like rifles or shotguns.
Some more information for you. This is the prosecutor at Dominick Black's hearing explaining to the judge that the prior possession ruling and the not-guilty verdicts at Rittenhouse's trial which preceded Black's case made Black's felony charges "not appropriate".
November 27, 2025 at 7:19 AM
Some more information for you. This is the prosecutor at Dominick Black's hearing explaining to the judge that the prior possession ruling and the not-guilty verdicts at Rittenhouse's trial which preceded Black's case made Black's felony charges "not appropriate".
Rittenhouse was charged under WI s.948.60 "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18". The charge was dismissed due to exception 3(c) of that statute. He was only required to be over the age of 16 and not in possession of a rifle which was short-barreled, as they are prohibited.
November 27, 2025 at 7:01 AM
Rittenhouse was charged under WI s.948.60 "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18". The charge was dismissed due to exception 3(c) of that statute. He was only required to be over the age of 16 and not in possession of a rifle which was short-barreled, as they are prohibited.
Just to be clear. Black already had a rifle. I was referring to the gun bought in May 2020, which was the rifle Rittenhouse carried in Kenosha. This image was taken during that camping trip to Ladysmith.
November 27, 2025 at 6:44 AM
Just to be clear. Black already had a rifle. I was referring to the gun bought in May 2020, which was the rifle Rittenhouse carried in Kenosha. This image was taken during that camping trip to Ladysmith.
He could do that. It was not unlawful for Rittenhouse to possess a rifle, and it was not unlawful for Black to give one to him.
November 27, 2025 at 6:27 AM
He could do that. It was not unlawful for Rittenhouse to possess a rifle, and it was not unlawful for Black to give one to him.
The reality...
November 21, 2025 at 9:16 PM
The reality...
The requirements for the use of force "intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm" are set out in WI s.939.48 (1). He was not permitted to use such force unless he reasonably believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
November 21, 2025 at 8:29 AM
The requirements for the use of force "intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm" are set out in WI s.939.48 (1). He was not permitted to use such force unless he reasonably believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
The facts are that he shot three people, two fatally. The circumstances of the shootings were examined over three weeks by a jury which unanimously determined that he had acted lawfully in accordance with Wisconsin's self-defense statute. It was thus not the crime of murder. Those are the facts.
November 21, 2025 at 8:13 AM
The facts are that he shot three people, two fatally. The circumstances of the shootings were examined over three weeks by a jury which unanimously determined that he had acted lawfully in accordance with Wisconsin's self-defense statute. It was thus not the crime of murder. Those are the facts.
If he had lost his rifle to Huber, there would have been little of him left to hand over to the cops. I guarantee it. That crowd was so fired up and emboldened that they would have kicked the living shit out of Rittenhouse. They quickly had a change of heart though, including this dude.
November 20, 2025 at 2:50 PM
If he had lost his rifle to Huber, there would have been little of him left to hand over to the cops. I guarantee it. That crowd was so fired up and emboldened that they would have kicked the living shit out of Rittenhouse. They quickly had a change of heart though, including this dude.
The legal standard is that he reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. He testified that he feared being knocked out and having his firearm taken. Are you telling me that was not a reasonable belief? Come on.
November 20, 2025 at 2:32 PM
The legal standard is that he reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. He testified that he feared being knocked out and having his firearm taken. Are you telling me that was not a reasonable belief? Come on.
There wasn‘t anything to suggest that Rittenhouse had responded to Kevin Mathewson’s Facebook request. The testimony was that Car Source employee Nick Smith had contacted Dominick Black on the morning of the shootings about guarding the property.
All three men shot were / are white.
All three men shot were / are white.
November 20, 2025 at 7:50 AM
There wasn‘t anything to suggest that Rittenhouse had responded to Kevin Mathewson’s Facebook request. The testimony was that Car Source employee Nick Smith had contacted Dominick Black on the morning of the shootings about guarding the property.
All three men shot were / are white.
All three men shot were / are white.
What should he have shame or remorse about? His use of force was lawful. Self-defense is not the crime of murder. The jury agreed that his belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable. As the law requires. 🤷🏻♂️
November 20, 2025 at 12:58 AM
What should he have shame or remorse about? His use of force was lawful. Self-defense is not the crime of murder. The jury agreed that his belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable. As the law requires. 🤷🏻♂️
The two individuals shot dead were not innocent in the context of why he shot them. They were not just innocent bystanders. Rosenbaum had threatened to kill him and was shot grabbing for his rifle. Huber attacked him as he was on the ground and also tried to take the gun. It was self-defense.
November 20, 2025 at 12:54 AM
The two individuals shot dead were not innocent in the context of why he shot them. They were not just innocent bystanders. Rosenbaum had threatened to kill him and was shot grabbing for his rifle. Huber attacked him as he was on the ground and also tried to take the gun. It was self-defense.
