GoFundMe Removes Fundraisers for Shooting Suspect Kyle Rittenhouse

GoFundMyAss!

Evening JBB...Geez is there anyone in control over there??..The country seems to be imploding...I know it is not the majourity...but...Riots, shootings, bush fires, cyclones, people running around looting and burning...People shooting one another in New York and Chicago and no one seems to blink an eye..Little kids shot dead by drive bys...Anti maskers, anti vaccers..And to top it off a bloody election..Roll on 2021...

Thing on the streets of The Bronx are way more normal and peaceful than people seem to think. The looting and shooting you see on TV have mostly been the same old street gangs (Crips, Bloods etc) taking advantage of the protests and Covid situation plus so many prisoners and mental patients getting early releases due to Covid-19. 

There is a big rightwing element in the US that has been just itching for a race war forever in fulfillment of crazy racist prophecies. They figure now is as good of a time as any.

Add Trump and large numbers of unemployed disenfranchised urban and rural poor folks into the mix and what have you got?

Yeah, I guess it is pretty damn dicey...

Oh Bullsht! That is so lame I can't believe you said it. [Deleted]

Why is it that you think murder an appropriate response to property damage but property damage is not an appropriate response to murder? Huh?

The police and rightwing vigilantes must stop murdering unarmed citizens. That is where we must agree to start!

Evening..We were given the number of shootings etc over a weekend in the 2 cities just as a News item...30 in Chicago and 40 in New York...to us that is just horrendous..I had to double check I thought I heard it wrong..To be honest don't really care if people are Left Right Yellow Black have 2 heads or come from Mars..What is wrong with people when they just calmly pull out a gun and shoot someone?? A kid riding his bike on his front lawn shot in the head. A slight fender bender a step father and daughter shot dead..A cop shoots a guy in the back 7 times..A 17 year old running around the streets with a AR-15 style weapon..What in the hell are people thinking?? Do they have visions of grandeur, acting out their Movie idols, their 10 minutes of fame...it truly is astounding...and the aftermath...words fail me..Sorry might have pushed this off topic so had better pull my head in..

It is so messed up that some here defend the murders and the murderers. None of it is justifiable. Not the murders, no matter what "side" you are on, and not the rioting nor the looting. Not the killing, stealing or destruction is okay. It must stop!

Let's not confuse that with peaceful protests.

The protests will stop when the people protesting believe they have been heard and see things changing. 

Donald Trump is in charge. Deal with that first!

Not wrong being messed up..I hold my breath now when I see and hear peaceful protests over there..or are they going to be high jacked??...It is relief when they do turn out peaceful...But at the moment they seem to be among the few..Stay safe where ever you are from cyclones, bushfires, floods, protests and and..You mob are getting nearly as good us with all our nasties and bities that can kill you...Have a good morning..

I would like to send every one of those aholes who loot, maim, burn, and kill on a walk about to the most funnel web spider infested part of Oz.

It does seem that the smart people the founders intended to be in control, have finally lost control lol. 

Well that's good. GoFundMe should never have allowed it to begin with. I hope the little vermin is tried as a adult and his parents tried as well.

It is reported that Rittenhouse shot an unarmed protester five times. Damn hard to claim self defense.

Evening Kavika..Yes just read that here too..in the right groin, back, left hand, left thigh and right side of his forehead...

Damn hard to claim self defense.

not really friend Kav , if one can consider how fast something can go sideways .

 the video i have seen posted on the site here shows the kid running across a street / parking lot and out of view behind cars , his first deadly mistake during this encounter , going alone .

while running something is thrown at him that appears to be afire and shortly after it misses him , he had already made it out of view , the object thrown lands behind the cars out of view  the first person shot is seen running after him . and i would say caught up with the kid , thats the mistake the person shot made , running up on an armed individual , again alone.

 from here evidence would suggest that a struggle for the firearm very likely took place , be it the person shot tried to take the firearm away or something else to subdue the kid. As evidence i would point at the wound patterns , already mentioned , leg groin torso and hand and head.

 Every image i have seen( and i have seen more than has been posted on this site) of the kid shows him carrying the firearm in the muzzle down presentation and secured  with a retaining strap that is not a "sling" but actually a retention system designed so that the weapon is next to impossable to get away from someone that uses one .yet allows for rapid use and hard to lose physical control of the weapon retained.

 IF a struggle did ensure , the pattern of wounds in order would be from the way the kid carried muzzle down , would be leg groin , torso ,  now if the first 2 shots were leg groin and the next torso , the person shot would have been likely going down to the ground  and the next shot or shots would not require ant raising of the weapon , and i am of the thought that the next shot was a through and through through the hand and into the right side of the head,  Why? my thought is someone going to ground , is going to reach out with a dominant hand , to try and stabilize their fall to the closest object , in this case , likely the kid himself . and the act of reaching even if shot can be viewed in the split moments could be inturpeted as still reaching for the weapon.

 In the case i just presented , reasonable doubt  of self defense is established . now we have to wait and see what the forensic experts and the justice system come up with.

 notice i have ony discussed the first incident , the other 2 are clearly from the videos , self defense  IMHO.

his first deadly mistake during this encounter , going alone .

I think his first mistake was showing up at a protest with a rifle which made him believe he could "go alone".

Every image i have seen( and i have seen more than has been posted on this site) of the kid shows him carrying the firearm in the muzzle down presentation and secured  with a retaining strap that is not a "sling" but actually a retention system designed so that the weapon is next to impossible to get away from someone that uses one.

Obviously, with multiple people shot or killed, he did raise the weapon to kill at some point whether it was on video or not.

"the act of reaching even if shot can be viewed in the split moments could be interpreted as still reaching for the weapon."

Can you say with a straight face that if this had been an armed black 17 year old who some white Protestors felt threatened by and tried to "reach" for his gun and so he shot them, you'd still be defending the shooter? Or would the narrative turn to "well the peaceful protestors felt he was threatening them with the rifle so they were just trying to make a citizens arrest when the thug shot and killed them..."?

Can you say with a straight face that if this had been an armed black 17 year old who some white Protestors felt threatened by and tried to "reach" for his gun and so he shot them, you'd still be defending the shooter?

One word answer to this one , and that is YES.

because i dont look at color of  skin  in a case such as this .

 Now i did state that his first mistake during the ENCOUNTER , as for other mistakes , i would tend to agree that he made many  before , AND after, but i see them simply by virtue of being almost 5 decades older than him , AND having been in both the military(10 yrs )  and LEO professions (8 yrs).with pursuant training in such situations.

 Citizens arrests are a very vague thing , mainly because citizens think they have authorities they actually do not that do not preclude one from resisting in any means at their disposal at the time.. In the last 2 shootings , that would not be considered a citizens arrest , but straight up assault , first with a skateboard , and then with a pistol respectively and the end result was one dead there ( the closest) that appears to also try and get control of a retained weapon, you can see what i stated above about that. and one that will either be called lefty or stumpy for attempting to point a pistol .

 Instead of swinging a skateboard  the guy should have simply pig piled on him with the firearm beneath the kid , but emotions and adrenalin dictated things differently . and from what i have seen most everyone there was of a lighter skin tone.. least all the people involved are.

I am simply looking at what did go down from the point it started to go down with the people involved. and attempting to use what would have been the logical course of actions ( filling in the unknowns) , that is enough to have me pause any pre judgements .

His use of the weapon was illegal, thus he will not have self defense available to him.  I am not a lawyer but that is what I read. 

Possession of an illegal weapon is one of the charges I believe. 

your opinion John, thats all that is , under aged kids have in the past used firearms to defend themselves all over the country , i will grant it is usually in their own homes , but it does not negate the self defense  issue 

 And like you i am not a lawyer , but if it can be shown within a reasonable doubt self defense would still apply. and a jury can and likely would take that into consideration irregardless of jury instructions.

 me i will wait and see what happens , irregardless of what i personally think . in other words i will consider what is presented and not others emotional opinions .

 To me its still a tossup , but if i had to give odds , The Kenosha Kid has about a 75% chance of getting off on the major charges , and likely will have some of the lesser charges diminished in front of a jury.

Since he is under 18, he was open carrying illegally. BTW, he was also on the street AFTER the curfew took effect. The Police Chief blamed the victims for being out after the curfew but the shooter, not so much...

I think a misdemeanor gun charge is the least if his worries right now.

I believe one of the charges against him is illegally possessing a weapon.  I believe this will effect any use of a self defense defense. If it will make it impossible to claim self defense, I dont know. 

i came across an interesting article

This narrative transforms Rittenhouse from an unstable killer to a Second Amendment hero. And you need only accept a few fictions to buy into it. First, you must believe that the protesters chasing down Rittenhouse and attempting to wrest his gun away were not trying to prevent further bloodshed, but simply to brutalize him. Second, you must agree that even if   these protesters were trying to confiscate Rittenhouse’s gun, they were wrong to do so, because they were the vicious lawbreakers and he was the vulnerable peacekeeper. Third, you must embrace a definition of self-defense so capacious that it allows a gunman to legally shoot a civilian dead when that civilian is trying to seize a weapon  the gunman has used to kill someone . Or, as the New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie  put it , “if someone is trying to stop you after you killed someone, you can continue shooting and killing in ‘self-defense.’ ”

the argument for self-defense boils down to this: If civilians try to seize a weapon from a gunman who just shot somebody in the head, that gunman has a right to shoot  them . If this theory were legally correct—thankfully, it isn’t—then a person who tries to grab a mass shooter’s gun may be legally killed by the shooter himself. Rittenhouse ultimately proved to be a mass shooter, one in illegal possession of a firearm, a gun that police allowed him to carry even after he had apparently shot three people a block in front of their squad cars. The cops who ordered protesters to disperse for violating curfew did not order an obviously underage teen to put down his assault weapon. Tucker Carlson got it backward; the question here is why anyone is shocked that protesters tried to disarm a vigilante when law enforcement refused.

slate

I also read that the incident in the parking lot where the first man was killed was "blocks" away from the building that Rittenhouse said he was protecting.  Why was he a long distance away from the spot he was supposedly protecting? 

The logical answer is he went off in search of something to do. Brought his gun too. I think he's going to have a hard time showing he wasnt at least partly responsible for all the violence that ensued. 

Interesting opinion piece by someone whom doesnt post credentials of any degrees in law simply a reporter , much like both of us.

And the ultimate end game is the 3 "victims " had no legal authority to attempt to disarm him in the first place and i will catagorize that under . play stupid games or take stupid chances , one wins prizes they may not want or can afford..

 Also John , thats why I decide if or when i will carry , as well as how ( open vs concealed) and i also have some very strict personal rules i adhere too, One of which i know you will not like. that rule is the weapon i carry is not for anyone elses protection but myselfs if i choose to carry one , you and i can be in the same place at the same time and face the same threat , and i would not use it to protect you , only myself.

 You can ask what good does it do then? its not there to do YOU any good , it is only there for my protection if i feel I need it , not the publics or anyone elses.

 and before i even consider unsecuring it AND actually using it , 3 things have to be met 

1 what is the intent of the supposed threat

2 what is the capability of the supposed threat

3 does the supposed threat have the opertunity to actually do ME physical harm or death

I also read that the incident in the parking lot where the first man was killed was "blocks" away from the building that Rittenhouse said he was protecting.  Why was he a long distance away from the spot he was supposedly protecting? 

I cant answer that because i dont know , and i havent read that , but you are of course welcome to your own opinion on the matter

I can say that in the vid i have seen posted on NT he appears to run a good 4-5 city blocks towards the police when he gets attacked or whatever one decides it was for themselves..

keep in mind  an actual city block and a block out here are slightly different measurments  and concepts

In order to have any claim of self defense in a murder case he has to prove he was reasonably in fear for his life. 

None of the three people he shot were carrying weapons. The first guy in the parking lot was unarmed. Evidently he tried to take Rittenhouse's gun away from him.  That is evidence he was threatening Rittenhouse's life?  I dont think so.  I dont think the gun went off by accident , Rittenhouse intentionally shot an unarmed man. His defense is that the man was trying to take his gun. 

The guy he killed later in the middle of the street was trying to disarm a killer. How could anyone prove he was a threat to Rittenhouse's life? 

It will be an interesting case since there is no "stand-you-ground"  in Wisconsin for either the shooter or the victims. Kind of a castle doctrine law for defending your person and property - not necessarily someone else's.

As far as attempting to disarm the shooter. If a civilian approached me in the streets with a long gun I would assume he was a threat and might kill me.

Whats the lefts favorite fall back for gun control? some one will take your gun and kill you with it  in a high stress enviroment. that would be to a normal person if some one attempts to disarm them a "reasonable " fear. And it is something you yourself have used in the past during our discussions on gun control and thats not what happened , the person attempting the disarmament died.

OR is that whole they will take your gun and use it on you a made up LIE?

 The guy later shot and killed while the Kenosha kid was on the ground is seen on video and in stills attempting to pummel him with a skateboard , was it an "assault" skateboard or weapon of opertunity?

Reasonable fear?

Guy shot in the arm, Stumpy, possession of a glock hand gun from reports , and shown in the same video not putting it down until police arrive and direct him to put it down to get medical treatment. also after it was shown that he attempted to rush the kid with gun in hand.

Again another reasonable fear for ones well being?

 question is now, do you want to keep digging , or aquiesse that there IS actually more here than what is being reported by any side?

Thing is John you will never be able to convince me that any person does not have the human right to defend themselves with whatever they have at hand against harm or death, even if that means someone else is going to have to die in doing so  skateboard guy thought that way and it appears Stumpy did too.. And its safe to say so did the Kenosha kid ,  2 of the 3 will be carried by 6 , while he is judged by the 12 on the jury if it goes that way.

Well thats the point. What was the legitimate fear of the people Rittenhouse was threatening all day with his AR-15?  When he starts running across that parking lot you can hear a couple women scream and one of them shouts "he's got a gun". It doesnt sound unreasonable to me that some of those people thought they needed to try and take the gun away from him. 

Kind of a castle doctrine law for defending your person and property

And in each case isnt that what the kenosha kid was actually doing , defending himself from potential harm?

As far as attempting to disarm the shooter. If a civilian approached me in the streets with a long gun I would assume he was a threat and might kill me.

that one cuts both ways , some civilian comes up and attempts to forcefully disarm me , i would assume they are a threat and might kill me.

Im all for gun control , as long as im the one in control of it .

Thing is John you will never be able to convince me that any person does not have the human right to defend themselves with whatever they have at hand against harm or death, even if that means someone else is going to have to die in doing so 

You cant shoot someone that slaps you in the face or even punches you in the face.  You have to have fear of great bodily harm. 

What right did Rosenbaum have to try and disarm someone he thought was about to shoot someone? It all comes back to Rittenhouse wandering around with a long gun in a place where he had no authority and wasnt wanted. And it was illegal for him to have the gun to boot.  I think it's an uphill fight for this kid to get off, but I'm not really familiar with the makeup of juries in Kenosha. 

From the vid , yes i would say everyone had reasonable fears ,  the women i heard scream was after a gunshot that sounded louder and different from a standard AR , and has been reported that someone shot into the air in the immediate area.

 And we know for sure when they scream he has a gun , they were talking about the kid? or could they have been talking about whomever shot into the air?

 take the gun away from him when they had no legal authority to even attempt to do so? thats a fools errand and we see the results , and best left to actual uniformed police units , see what i said about citizens arrests earlier. people think they have the authority they actually do not have and act on it with disaterous consequenses.

You cant shoot someone that slaps you in the face or even punches you in the face.  You have to have fear of great bodily harm. 

Tell that to the 70 yo whose jaw was broke that same night defending a mattress store with a fire extinguisher  a few blocks away..

as for rosenbaum , he had no right , the ONLY right he did have was to keep eyes on the kid and have the cops enroute to take care of the situation , he had no right  to try and handle the situation himself , by doing so he paid with his life for his mistaken belief he had the authority to. and was doing the right thing

what authority did Rittenhouse have?  His carrying that weapon that night was not even legal.  What right did he have to carry that gun through that parking lot? None. 

I was about to say the same thing , but was denied the update ., none had the right to do as they did  as far as the carrying to the interventions by others and as i said earlier i saw many mistakes made by the kenosha kid before , during and after the incident. but then again i have a few years on him and a lifetime of experiences to draw on.  

and you think he should walk because he had control of the gun.  ok. 

He's going to have a hard time. One of the people he shot on the street was 2 or 3 ft away from him and unarmed. Thats attempted murder. 

He's going to have a hard time. One of the people he shot on the street was 2 or 3 ft away from him and unarmed. Thats attempted murder. 

the only one that was unarmed from reports was the first person shot and i would likely guess he was closer than 2-3 feet during the exchange/ confrontation , and if it can be proven he tried to wrestle the weapon away from the kid , the jury can see that as self defense , not very hard or even a stretch.

 Skater dude is on video using the board as a weaopn , a laminated skakeboard is no different  as a baseball bat , just a little cruder , and a weapon of improvision .and just as deadly  because of the metal parts

 stumpy as stated had a glock when he was shot .

i will wait and see what the evidence , all the evidence says and how its presented in court.

 But from whats presented now , i give the kid a 75% chance of getting off on the major charges , some of the other charges , likely be downgraded. Im also going to wait and see if the prosecutor offers any kind of a plea deal, if they do it usually means their case isnt as strong as first thought , AND its starting to unravel into the defendants favor..

Aren't the charges murder and attempted murder?  Doesn't sound like self-defense to me.  

Rittenhouse didnt know if he was being hit with a skateboard or an ice cream cone when he shot those guys

your opinion , we know whats said about opinions.

Whatever the charges are , IF it goes to a jury trial , the choices they will have is guilty , aquitt, not guilty. 

Just because someone is charged with murder , does not rule out the use of a self defense plea , or that the jury cannot take that into consideration in their verdict.

and again it will all be based on what provable evidence is presented during trial, and for that we will have to wait , at which point we all become armchair jurists with our own knowledge guiding us.to a conclusion.

None of the three people he shot were carrying weapons.

.

Whats in the top pictures right hand pointed to the ground? Is that a hand gun? thats the guy shot in the arm , the one I call stumpy , and i have more graphic pics not suitable for here .

bottom pic , is that an improvized bludgoning weapon caught in the act of a knife edged chop to the neck? swung by a person who got shot and died.

hardly unarmed IMHO

I would be pretty sure the defense will be using these stills from the video , to show the kid was not facing an unarmed  threat or group.

Im all for gun control , as long as im the one in control of it

Yep  - that's about it.

Gun control is hitting what you aim at.

If the person died, it is 1st degree murder.

As for the curfew, I believe he was on private property until he was chased off of it, which would negate the curfew issue.. 

On what do you base you belief? You know the sidewalk isn't 'private property' right? 

Just out of curiosity, what right did the deceased have to chase and attack him?

Just our of curiosity, do you think I should answer YOUR questions when you refuse to answer mine? 

BTFW, if the 'deceased' had been a 'good guy with a gun', instead of a skateboard, wouldn't he have had the 'right' to kill Rittenhouse? 

what's your point

My point is that you said you believed he was on private property and NOW you're admitting that he was NOT. 

Oh and BTFW, if he WERE on private property, he was trespassing, along with the rest of his militia buddies. 

Why in the fuck would he have a right to kill Rittenhouse, when he is the aggressor. 

Rittenhouse had just murdered someone, how could someone trying to stop him be the aggressor? 

What are you talking about, I never said that!

So you admit that the sidewalk is public property but that still claim that he was on private property?

You know that the interview with him show him standing on the SIDEWALK right?

You know that he said he was there to help people if they got hurt and that he had his med kit right? 

You know that video shows him standing over the man he shot and instead of helping him with his med kit he made a phone call and FLED right? 

You know that after he shot 2 more people, instead of doing the right thing and turning himself in to police, the 'back the blue' poser and his mommy FLED across state lines right? 

If he called his mommy and told her that he killed someone and she drove him home to Illinois, I hope they prosecute her to the greatest extent of the law too. LAW and ORDER right? 

What silly word games are you trying to play, 

None. If you need me to help you with a word, just ask. 

I never said he was on a sidewalk. Yes, the incident started on Car Source parking lot which is private property.

I did and he WAS on the sidewalk. Rittenhouse wasn't in the parking lot when he murdered two people and shot another. The video shows him running OFF of the parking lot. 

All you have done is deflect from the key point, the victim was the aggressor, what right did he have to take Rittenhouse's firearm. 

You are deflecting from the FACT that he had ALREADY killed someone. You're also deflecting from the FACT that Rittenhouse had NO right to carry a weapon. THAT was the first and last aggression. 

Do this experiment. Google 'man tackles gunman' and review how EVERYONE that has ever done so has been heralded as a hero. NO ONE asked what right they had to tackle the guy and try to disarm him. It's a ridiculous argument that has been fabricated to defend this young poser who murdered two people. 

Maybe you should review the police report.

Maybe YOU should watch the fucking video. 

A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. 

WTF is your point? Rosenbaum is NOT Rittenhouse, IS he goose? 

For the last time explain why Rosenbaum had any right to pursue and attempt to take Rittenhouse's firearm. He was the aggressor stop dancing around the question. 

There isn't any evidence that Rosenbaum DID attempt to take Rittnehouse's weapon. 

Oh and don't quote the police report to me. I read everything that McGinnis said. An unarmed man, making 'a motion' is NOT a death sentence in ANY state. 

As I said, the first and last aggression was Rittenhouse illegally open carrying and USING a weapon. 

Rosenbaum was the first person to get shot by Rittenhouse!!!!!!!!

No shit. 

READ THE FUCKIN POLICE REPORT!

I did. My statements accurately reflect it's content. 

Rosenbaum had EXACTLY the same right to stand in a given spot as Rittenhouse did. 

Just because McGinnis 'thinks' that Rosenbaum was trying to take Rittenhouse's gun doesn't mean he WAS and doesn't give Rittenhouse the right to shoot him 5 times. 

Now, why didn't Rittenhouse HELP Rosenbaum with his med kit? Why didn't Rittenhouse call 911? Why didn't Rittenhouse turn himself in instead of fleeing the state? WHY? 

you keep deflecting from what he was doing.

You keep pretending that I am deflecting. I'm not. 

BTFW, I asked you questions. Answers? 

You mean Kyle Rittenhouse murdering those folks in cold blood?

How so goose? 

Didn't the poser say he was there to run into danger and help people who were hurt with his med kit? THAT'S in the interview with McGinnis isn't it? 

After Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum 5 times, he grabbed his phone and made a call didn't he? THAT happened, didn't it? Did he call 911? FUCK NO. He called his buddy to tell him he killed someone.

Oh and isn't the poser supposed to be all about 'law enforcement'? Doesn't he idolize the LEOs and Trump? So all that law and order poser bullshit must not have sunk in when it came to telling mommy and having her drive you to the nearest police station to turn himself in.

Do you know if it was the young man that was trying to protect his gf and disarm that ahole?

A fundraiser for Rittenhouse created on an alternative fundraising website, GiveSendGo was remaining up. GiveSendGo describes itself as a Christian crowdfunding site.

go figure. watch the money disappear.

A fundraiser for Rittenhouse created on an alternative fundraising website, GiveSendGo was remaining up. GiveSendGo describes itself as a Christian crowdfunding site.

go figure. watch the money disappear.

just read on my news feed , that a gun rights group is also raising legal defense funds , and it mentions that $97,000 has been raised by a christian crowd funding site , wonder if it is one and the same site you mention.

it would appear that gofund me isnt the only crowd funding site people can use.

More faux christians supporting someone doing an unchristian act.  Gandhi was right about christians.

Kyle Rittenhouse loved cops, guns, President Trump, and “triggering the libs,” according to some of his former classmates at Lakes Community High School in Lake County, Illinois. His clothes were often branded with pro-police slogans, and he carried a Blue Lives Matter phone case, one student said.

Some of his classmates joked that he’d be a mass shooter one day. “I personally believe he went to Wisconsin with the intent to kill,” said one former classmate, who asked not to be identified out of fear for their safety.

Rittenhouse, 17, was arrested Wednesday and charged with murder in the killing of two Black Lives Matter protesters Tuesday night in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He’d traveled there, he claimed, to help “ protect people ,” during the ongoing protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man. Blake’s family says he’s now partially paralyzed.

While Rittenhouse was only enrolled at Lakes Community High School for the 2017 to 2018 academic year, he left an impression. Students reached by VICE News described him as short-tempered and easily offended.

vice

Also Jacob Blake, in the hospital, is cuffed to his bed.  What the fuck law did he break?

Assaulted a woman, resisted arrest for starters

A better question is why handcuff him to the bed as he is paralyzed from the waist down and can hardly escape.  All it is going to do is cause bed sores because he can't be turned every two hours to prevent skin breakdown.

What the fuck law did he break?

I actually don't find it shocking that you don't know what laws he broke.

UPDATE - He is no longer cuffed to the bed.

According to many conservatives I've listened to here, these are "thugs"...

but these are "patriots"...

The only difference being skin color

The only difference being skin color

That and the symbols they're waving. Could you imagine if that group of armed black men were waving "Al Qaida" flags or some flag that was a symbol of hate for white people and was flown in the past at massacres of white people or thousands of white lynching's in the last two hundred years? How quickly would they have been labeled domestic terrorists and arrested regardless of what they claimed the flag meant to them or how it was just a symbol of their freedom or heritage?

Confederate flag = Al Qaida flag (if there is one, both attacked Americans on American soil) = Swastika. I see no difference between any of those obvious symbols of hate.

White people not offended Nazi flags are racists and represent a small minority though a larger percentage than we might think...

You take a red banner , put a white circle on it and a swastika in the center of the circle , and i find that offensive if it is not in a museum or a learning enviroment , i see a swastika on a buddah or depicted in native american art( also called whirling logs ) from the SW and it takes on an entirely different connetation as it should.

ording to many conservatives I've listened to here,

Do you even believe that? It's too  made up

to be even considered gas lighting. 

Ah, the alt left apologist gas lighting, colour me shocked.

Total Incels lol. Vagina has never been (voluntarily) within 15 feet of them. 

GoFundMe seems to be following the terms they established so they have a right to take down the campaign if it violates those terms.  As far as the other sites, as distasteful as this is, Rittenhouse has rights too.

The poster couple for Trump Supporters.

So it is true.....men can have camel toes

LOL.  Thank you.  That was the term I was looking for.

On men it is considered a, "buffalo knuckle". 

That makes sense as he does look as dumb as one and is probably just as smelly.

I did not know that.  Now I'm sorry I do.  hahahahahaha

Lol seriously? Are they advertising for "Saggy Tits Weekly?"

I've heard since that those aren't actually the killers' parents.  The killers' mother is a single mom.

Fuck that idiot kid.