17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

[Alli]

All I know is I’m angry and there’s nothing I can do about it. My heart is breaking that this is being allowed to happen while half the elected officials refuse to pass the equal voting rights act.

 

[SuperMatt]

You may be right.

So can I on the Democratic Representative from CA who said 1) His mother drove him and 2) drove him with the gun in an interview with Jake Tapper on November 14th. So not just Social Media spewing misinformation, but an elected Congresswoman.

The tape cuts off so I have no idea if Tapper corrects her or lets it stand. Tapper is usually pretty good about facts so I hope he did.

Yes, she should have known better - it was reported a year earlier that his mother didn’t drive him. She probably saw it on social media the day before (it was trending on the 13th) and believed it.

People should NOT get News from social media, period. It’s no different from getting it through this guy:

 

[User.45]

That was a Facebook post, not a news article. I don’t think most people associate “reporting” with a Facebook meme. The “MSM” actually reported the story correctly. Here’s a pic of the “reporting” you’re talking about...

View attachment 9899

Yeah, that’s not “reporting” no matter how you slice it. Facebook is infamous for misinformation… this is yet another example.

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother did not drive him to Kenosha shootings

Social media posts circulating during the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse claim his mother drove him to the town in the US state of Wisconsin where he shot three people. But the prosecutor trying the case says there is no evidence to support the claim, Rittenhouse and a friend testified about...

news.yahoo.com

I don't even understand the point of his argument other than obfuscation (as always). My impression is that KR had his mother's full support in this shit. This is where racism comes into the picture. KR obviously has horrible horrible awful parents who primed him for homicide, yet this case was devoid of condescending remarks of parenting or absentee fathers. Etc. Among many levels of failure, this case is the failure of the White American Parent. Which takes us to White America's issues, complete lack of reckoning or even awareness.

What kind of parent brings their child to a violent area so their child can “protect” and offer “medical aid”? Would any of you take the risk of placing your own child in harm’s way and bring them to a protest knowing full well the past few days were violent? Would any of you allow your minor child to own a gun? Also, if he was there for medical aid, why did he need a weapon? Do firefighters and other EMT carry AR-15 and other weapons…?

I know EMTs who carry non-firearm self-defense devices. It can be a rough line of business. But I'll say, one of the most ridiculous thing I've seen was these kids playing CoD screaming MEDIC! Then a person who did a basic first aid course (at best, which is like mandatory for a driver's license in the parts of Europe I'm from), runs up and pretends to have a slight idea about how to attend to wounds. FFS.

 

[SuperMatt]

If this is how self-defense law is interpreted, I think this will have a chilling effect on peaceful protests. If counter-protesters show up with assault weapons, they can apparently use even the slightest “feeling” that they are threatened as an excuse to open fire. This could scare people away from demonstrating peacefully. They’ve essentially deputized far-right militias, giving them carte blanche to blatantly provoke others and then gun them down if they respond.

However, if we make self-defense too difficult for a defendant to prove, then we run the risk of sending domestic abuse or rape victims to prison for defending themselves.

I fear this will lead to many more shootings. If everybody thinks they are just “defending themselves” - what’s to stop 2 rival armed groups from an all-out gunfight in the street? And would they let everybody that survived the gunfight go free? Gun laws in this country are terrible, and we are paying the price.

When it comes to self-defense, the prosecution has a heavier burden. (Published 2021)

The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse points to the wide berth given to defendants who say they acted out of fear.

www.nytimes.com

Interesting article here about how the changes to gun laws without corresponding changes to self-defense laws have contributed to the situtation. (Paywall removed)

 

[Eric]

If this is how self-defense law is interpreted, I think this will have a chilling effect on peaceful protests. If counter-protesters show up with assault weapons, they can apparently use even the slightest “feeling” that they are threatened as an excuse to open fire. This could scare people away from demonstrating peacefully. They’ve essentially deputized far-right militias, giving them carte blanche to blatantly provoke others and then gun them down if they respond.

However, if we make self-defense too difficult for a defendant to prove, then we run the risk of sending domestic abuse or rape victims to prison for defending themselves.

I fear this will lead to many more shootings. If everybody thinks they are just “defending themselves” - what’s to stop 2 rival armed groups from an all-out gunfight in the street? And would they let everybody that survived the gunfight go free? Gun laws in this country are terrible, and we are paying the price.

This is exactly it. You have a gun, confront (threaten both physically and verbally) and if the victim resists in any way they then have a right to murder them. This isn't vague either, it's flat out legal precedent now. It's the same institutional problem we have with cops, only now civilians are granted that same authority, and with assault weapons no less.

BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.

 

[SuperMatt]

This is exactly it. You have a gun, confront (threaten both physically and verbally) and if the victim resists in any way they then have a right to murder them. This isn't vague either, it's flat out legal precedent now. It's the same institutional problem we have with cops, only now civilians are granted that same authority, and with assault weapons no less.

BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.

I think this is partially due to badly-written laws, but also the judge, prosecution, and jury are to blame. If you sit back for 5 minutes and ask the question: “Was it REASONABLE for Rittenhouse to fear for his life?” The answer is no. Nobody else died at the protest. He was bigger than the person who threw a plastic bag at him. Running around after killing somebody with his gun on display made everybody else think he was a dangerous active shooter, so people trying to take the gun from him were NOT trying to kill him - just disarm him to stop the carnage.

A complete failure of the system led to this acquittal. But really… from the point of view of those who created the system, this is a success. “Social Justice Warriors” will think twice before protesting in the streets of Kenosha now, right?

 

[User.45]

I think this is partially due to badly-written laws, but also the judge, prosecution, and jury are to blame. If you sit back for 5 minutes and ask the question: “Was it REASONABLE for Rittenhouse to fear for his life?” The answer is no. Nobody else died at the protest. He was bigger than the person who threw a plastic bag at him. Running around after killing somebody with his gun on display made everybody else think he was a dangerous active shooter, so people trying to take the gun from him were NOT trying to kill him - just disarm him to stop the carnage.

A complete failure of the system led to this acquittal. But really… from the point of view of those who created the system, this is a success. “Social Justice Warriors” will think twice before protesting in the streets of Kenosha now, right?

Only memes are left.
America on her gun violence problem:

 

[Huntn]

This is exactly it. You have a gun, confront (threaten both physically and verbally) and if the victim resists in any way they then have a right to murder them. This isn't vague either, it's flat out legal precedent now. It's the same institutional problem we have with cops, only now civilians are granted that same authority, and with assault weapons no less.

BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.

So if you have your gun, you have a fighting chance except then Ironically, the judgement will now fall back on established prejudices, white is right. So take care if you are a minority, don’r expect any breaks in the courtroom.

 

[User.45]

This is exactly it. You have a gun, confront (threaten both physically and verbally) and if the victim resists in any way they then have a right to murder them. This isn't vague either, it's flat out legal precedent now. It's the same institutional problem we have with cops, only now civilians are granted that same authority, and with assault weapons no less.

BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.

Agree.

1. Fearing for your life at the sight of an oversized gun is a reasonable response
2. So are we gonna start rewarding people who survive altercations that happen because of the guns?

I agree with @SuperMatt too, this is a precedent that will prime America for civil war (encouragement of armed protests). @yaxomoxay do you think this isn’t a very very very concerning precedent?

 

[Alli]

BTW had this been a black man who showed up at a proud boys rally under the exact same circumstances he would probably be sitting on death row right now.

If this had been a Black man, he never would have lived to see a trial. #Facts

 

[Renzatic]

I agree with @SuperMatt too, this is a precedent that will prime America for civil war (encouragement of armed protests). @yaxomoxay do you think this isn’t a very very very concerning precedent?

I believe some certain special people will assume it does, but will find out very quickly that it does not the moment they attempt it.

Ignoring all the culture war issues, racial implications, and outright favoritism shown to Rittenhouse that surround this case, it doesn't create any precedence that we haven't seen before when it comes to standing your ground and self defense. Well, other than the fact that it may be legal in Wisconsin for anyone below the age of 18 to own and a bear a hunting rifle now.

In the end, I think it's the Arbery case that's the more important one. Rittenhouse's actions were arguably even more shocking and seemingly widespread, but his walking doesn't effect the basis of our judicial system quite as much as it would if the McMichael's get away with their crimes scot free.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Agree.

1. Fearing for your life at the sight of an oversized gun is a reasonable response
2. So are we gonna start rewarding people who survive altercations that happen because of the guns?

I agree with @SuperMatt too, this is a precedent that will prime America for civil war (encouragement of armed protests). @yaxomoxay do you think this isn’t a very very very concerning precedent?

I know you didn’t ask me but I’m worried that it will. There are a *lot* of people out there with guns. There are a lot of people who think the police are being prevented from doing their jobs (and I believe there is some truth to this but that’s another topic) - so they take matters into their own hands. This is only going to encourage more of this type of behavior - untrained people (kids?) with guns out in the streets especially during very stressful situations is the last thing we need right now.

I know how to use guns (I do not own one) and I’ve been to shooting ranges with law enforcement officers before. I’d still freak out if I saw a guy walking around with a rifle like that, especially if he/she wasn’t a law enforcement officer.

My wife and I had the misfortune to live next to a drug house (our first house we rented) and every month it seemed like the swat team would raid the house. Police asked us if they could use our backyard to hop the fence, we said yes so from that point forward, it wasn’t an uncommon sight to see a group of fully armed swat officers enter our back yard every few months. We eventually moved but - my point is: I always figured, we should probably lay on the ground till they clear the house just in case any shooting happened. It’s unnerving even with fully trained police. A kid? Lol.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Too long, Don't read...

The unpleasant take on all of this, and it's ties to race.

Yes, race was a factor in all of this once upon a time, as the protests were over another killing of an unarmed Black man by police. This happened of course in the wake of George Floyd which was a volatile time, because sad fact such killings won't stop. In this backdrop under a call to so called arms & a desire to role play being a cop & carrying a 'cool' weapon the kid rolled into town.

Think about the disconnect right there. All this furor is over the police killing Black men, this kid is psyched about being a cop one day.

He's going to help people one day.

Sorry, he wasn't legally a man yet at the time...

Protests broke out. Riots happened. For those who remember the other place, what was the one refrain from a few over there? The concern for property. Suddenly there was all this concern for places of business that people will NEVER frequent. "Oh goodness, won't someone think of the businesses & their owners!" "What about Black people being killed by police?" Not realizing the irony to come later during a pandemic... "They should have just complied!"

The kid supposedly went to protect businesses. Stopping right there. The underage kid went to another town to get handed a gun, to protect businesses. Did he get paid? Did he talk to the owners? Did he get deputized? He patrolled with an armed weapon. Because our country has "vigilantism" baked into's DNA not from comic books, but from the earliest days & slavery. It got baked into mythology with 'Westerns', where sometimes a man has to pickup 'the steel'. An underage kid is wandering the streets armed, defying a curfew, during protests, with the seeming approval of the local authorities. What the FUCK could go wrong there?

The ultimate kick in the nuts again? The person who handed the kid a gun will probably face legal consequences, but not the kid who actually used the gun to kill people. The weapon charge was thrown because of the type of gun, but the guy who gave the kid the gun is still in trouble. Ookay...

The kid shot people. The kid shot WHITE people.

To quote a recent Uber Eats campaign, "That's weird".

Why? The outrage is missing. Media is seemingly disappointed that Kenosha isn't a smoking wasteland by now. Why? The outrage is missing. All of this sadly got a shrug, some expected disappointment & resignation, and somehow another White guy got away with killing not one, but two people with NO legal responsibility. How many of us can say we'd imagine we could kill 2 people no matter the context, and we'd face NO consequences? Everyone saw a judge, that now doesn't like the light, help steer a course.

Kalief Browder was in jail for 3 years for allegedly stealing a backpack, and no trial. This kid got a relatively speedy trial for something everyone knows he did. Kalief Browder was eventually released, and later killed himself because of what he faced in those wrongly imprisoned 3 years. This kid got handed a judge who the world thinks is weird as fuck, got off scott free, and republicans fighting to make him a congressional ( Kid, please choose Matt Gaetz or Jim Jordan to ride along with ) intern. Two families are minus family members and no one is legally responsible for their deaths.

That's NOT weird.

We know about Marissa Alexander & the place that's championed 'self defense'. That's NOT weird. That's the system,

I digressed, but you get it. Things are different based on who you are in America.

Even if the crime involves killing White people who had a right to be there as much as the kid, who after he shoots the first person are NOT allowed the same 'self defense' defense the armed kid got.

Whether anyone wants to hear this quiet part out loud, this is one of those times that being White doesn't mean shit. All those racists pricks who thought they were clever with their "White Lives Matter" signs, aren't thinking of the two people killed by the kid. Those lives wouldn't have mattered unless it was a Black kid who shot them. Then as we've learned, 'self defense' ( even in Florida ) won't work for the Black kid, and the outrage would have been over flowing.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there is a very real issue coming to play in the future. It doesn't matter if you are White or Black, if one individual decides to bring a loaded weapon & their feelings in states with open carry, that have protests going on. A little fear while walking around with a weapon supposedly intended to quell that fear, and the opportunity to shoot or run over someone is now a legal option.

The system now has another means to discourage protest. Get some vigilantes. Doing wonders in Texas with abortions.

It's our system now, that certain 'justice' loving legislatures have embarked on. They don't like protests. They don't like being called on their shit. They especially didn't like them when it was Black people pissed & demanding not to be killed or shot in the name of 'order'. They really don't like them when White people are pissed too and join in.

There's an order to things & as I say the judge laid out, people are fucking with that order and need to learn.

If not, they'll bring back the vigilantes. For EVERYONE.


Also the judge told the jury the kid has the 'privilege' of self defense.

Must be nice IF you can get it.

 

[ouimetnick]

Excuse my ignorance here, but why is he being called a white supremacist? Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Slaughterhouse's victims were white, not black. I'm sure had Mr. Slaughterhouse been black, but everything else was the same (white victims) he's be in the slammer. Thats not Kyle being a white supremacist, that's just systemic racism.

 

[SuperMatt]

Excuse my ignorance here, but why is he being called a white supremacist? Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Slaughterhouse's victims were white, not black. I'm sure had Mr. Slaughterhouse been black, but everything else was the same (white victims) he's be in the slammer. Thats not Kyle being a white supremacist, that's just systemic racism.

Kyle Rittenhouse posed for photos with Proud Boys supporters at a bar after being released on $2 million bail, prosecutors say

After pleading not guilty to killing two protesters, the 18-year-old went to a bar, where he posed with men making a white supremacist gesture, prosecutors say.

www.cbsnews.com

But the judge didn’t want THAT to be revealed to the jury:

Prosecutors can’t show Kyle Rittenhouse’s link to Proud Boys: Judge

The decision marks a victory for Rittenhouse as he prepares for his trial in November. The ruling removes a line of attack for prosecutors who had hoped to show that Rittenhouse was a “chaos tourist” drawn to Kenosha “like a moth to a flame.”

chicago.suntimes.com

Nor did they allow a recording of him saying he wanted to use his ”AR“ to deal with people that robbed a CVS, nor a video of him beating up a teenage girl.

The judge wanted them to believe Kyle was an angel, trying to save lives, who had to defend himself from a deadly attack by a ”rioter” armed with a plastic bag. The judge allowed slander of the victims (am I allowed to say that word?) but nothing bad to be said about a person that admittedly killed 2 people.

 

[ouimetnick]

Kyle Rittenhouse posed for photos with Proud Boys supporters at a bar after being released on $2 million bail, prosecutors say

After pleading not guilty to killing two protesters, the 18-year-old went to a bar, where he posed with men making a white supremacist gesture, prosecutors say.

www.cbsnews.com

But the judge didn’t want THAT to be revealed to the jury:

Prosecutors can’t show Kyle Rittenhouse’s link to Proud Boys: Judge

The decision marks a victory for Rittenhouse as he prepares for his trial in November. The ruling removes a line of attack for prosecutors who had hoped to show that Rittenhouse was a “chaos tourist” drawn to Kenosha “like a moth to a flame.”

chicago.suntimes.com

Nor did they allow a recording of him saying he wanted to use his ”AR“ to deal with people that robbed a CVS, nor a video of him beating up a teenage girl.

The judge wanted them to believe Kyle was an angel, trying to save lives, who had to defend himself from a deadly attack by a ”rioter” armed with a plastic bag. The judge allowed slander of the victims (am I allowed to say that word?) but nothing bad to be said about a person that admittedly killed 2 people.

I forgot about him posing with that hand gesture. Didn’t even know about him assaulting a girl.

Interesting observation, that “white power” gesture is also used as a gesture to mean no problem, or 0. Steve Jobs even used it when describing how thin a new apple product was. Musicians and conductors use it when ending a song. Obviously context and intent are important here, but I thought I’d point that out.

 

[MEJHarrison]

Excuse my ignorance here, but why is he being called a white supremacist? Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Slaughterhouse's victims were white, not black.

My guess is that people are making that assumption based on the fact that he showed up to a protest over a black man being killed, not to support the black man, but to oppose that crowd that supported the black man. Actions like that do tend to lead an outside observer to certain conclusions.

 

[Thomas Veil]

...If everybody thinks they are just “defending themselves” - what’s to stop 2 rival armed groups from an all-out gunfight in the street? And would they let everybody that survived the gunfight go free? Gun laws in this country are terrible, and we are paying the price.

Pretty much the same feeling I had. This tells us that gun laws are so lax in this country that you can take a gun to a volatile situation and use it with the barest justification.

By implication, since the same laws apply to everyone, this tells us that protesters should also take guns to their activities. Yes, I know at least one of the victims had one, but the take away lesson I'm getting here is that perhaps to protect themselves from being shot, run over or whatever, civil rights protesters should arrange to have a ring of AR-15 equipped citizens on the perimeter of their events.

And if a shooting war breaks out, well...that's the culture the right has touted. C'est la vie.

 

[yaxomoxay]

@yaxomoxay do you think this isn’t a very very very concerning precedent?

Well. Let’s define terms first.

As a legal precedent, this doesn’t create any precedent at all.

As a precedent as in “weapons at a protest/rally” this doesn’t create a precedent either, both for concealed and unconcealed weapons.

As a political and practical precedent, yes it does create a sort of precedent, especially given the (deserved) attention to this case. Is it a “precedent” that worries me? Yes it does and it worries me especially in this age of echo chambers thru social media.

Does the “precedent” theory bear any weight on the trial? No, obviously.

Hope I answered your question.

 

[yaxomoxay]

In the end, I think it's the Arbery case that's the more important one.

Yes, 100%. I am not sure why the Rittenhouse trial had more coverage than Arbery. Arbery is the real decision here that might define a legal precedent for self defense.

I admit I haven’t followed it as much as I should (my brain has limited capacity!), but a self defense claim seems very unreasonable in Arbery.