LF: Kyle Rittenhouse Was 'Turned On' by Mob For Trying to Put Out Car Fires, Witness Says [UPDATED]

Title: Kyle Rittenhouse Was 'Turned On' by Mob For Trying to Put Out Car Fires, Witness Says [UPDATED]
Source: Information Liberation
URL Source: https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61687
Published: Aug 29, 2020
Author: Chris Menahan
Post Date: 2020-09-01 19:15:35 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 481
Comments: 5

Kyle Rittenhouse was "turned on" by a mob on Tuesday night in Kenosha for trying to put out car fires after having put out a fire at a Church earlier in the night, according to a man who reportedly witnessed the riots first hand and allegedly met and joined with Rittenhouse to protect a local business.

The witness told The Vicki McKenna Show during an interview on 1310 WIBA on Friday that Rittenhouse and others, including military veterans, responded to a call on social media from a business owner to help protect his business which had already been partially destroyed during the prior nights of rioting.

The witness, whose identity McKenna says she confirmed but called "Walt" to avoid doxing, said Rittenhouse was with his brother that night who "was his guardian at the time which made it legal for him to possess a firearm."

Walt said Rittenhouse got separated from his brother by police MRAPs trying to disperse the "wild" crowds and police wouldn't allow Rittenhouse to cross back and rejoin their group as the situation was getting out of control with "gunshots" and explosions going off.

Rittenhouse walked by himself to try and meet up with another group "down on 63rd" for safety reasons and called Walt and his brother's group to say, "There's cars on fire down here."

"Earlier in the night, he put the Church next door -- with another one of our people in the group -- he put the Church out of fire," Walt said. "So he's running there, cars are on fire, he wants to put the cars on fire out."

"Well, the crowd did not like that, so they turned on him," Walt said. "Which, at that point they were chasing him around the area."

"I mean, they saw him as a young child, so he was prey to them, they could easily take advantage of him, steal his gun, do whatever horrible to him," Walt said. "At that point, I believe, is when he defended himself first."

Listen to the full interview from 1310 WIBA:

UPDATE: Newly discovered video shows Rittenhouse running with a fire extinguisher:

If the claim of lawfulness relies on this, Rittenhouse has a real problem. It is not clear if the claim is that Rittenhouse was with the brother of the witness or his own brother, but it is clear in the video that he was not with any guardian at that time. Being in the same city is not the relevant form of togetherness. Going hunting under the supervision of an adult would do.

What happened seems apparent. Terrorist felons hunted Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha, tracked him down, and multiple members of the pack subjected him to an attack in the mistaken belief he would never fire his weapon. The one who got shot in the arm was a felon with a gun unlawfully in his possession. After he was shot, the gun remained dangling from his hand. No charges have been brought against this attacker. This should be kept in mind when considering how the prosecutors are proceeding.

An instructive case from Indiana was decided in June 2020. A general rule, and held in Indiana, is that a plea of self-defense is barred when the claimant committed a criminal act with an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation. Wisconsin will consider any criminal act they can allege which fits their need. Rittenhouse reported has five lawyers working his case for a good reason. John Pierce is the lead defense counsel.

How strong a case is for self-defense is immaterial if he can't get that plea before a jury. Any criminal act with an immediate causal connection to the confrontation may void the claim.

Also relevant will be whether the confrontation with the second and third victims is considered a continuation of the confrontation with the head shot victim, or if it is treated as a second confrontation. If considered seperately, reckless endangerment incident to the first confrontation might void self-defense for the second confrontation.

Gaige Grosskreutz, who was caught on camera pointing a gun at Rittenhouse before the teenager show him in the arm, made the comments after doctors were able to save the limb from being amputated.

According to his friend Jacob Marshall, who is pictured with Grosskreutz, the BLM supporter’s “only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him.”

In the Facebook post, Marshall also admits that Grosskreutz “drew his weapon” before he was shot by Rittenhouse.

“Well this literally shows INTENT TO KILL, so Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense lawyer just got an early Christmas present,” tweeted Mike Cernovich.

It is not clear if the claim is that Rittenhouse was with the brother of the witness or his own brother, but it is clear in the video that he was not with any guardian at that time.

Being in the same city is not the relevant form of togetherness. Going hunting under the supervision of an adult would do.

They got separated you shyster. This was self defense, pure and simple.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Pollak asked how Rittenhouse obtained a firearm:

“Wisconsin is an open carry state,” replied Pierce. “You’ve seen the video of what was going on in that city. It was a war zone, and Kyle had every right — just as much a right — to be there as the people that were trying to burn down that city, and he was attempting to protect property and attempting to be there to provide medical aid.”

Pierce added, “Every person that has any sense at all is going to take a weapon to that location. It was a legal weapon. I can’t comment right now further on the specifics of where the weapon was obtained. It was obtained as a legal weapon. It did not cross state lines. That charge is incorrect as a matter of law in Wisconsin. Actually, that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older.”

WHY does Rittenhouse need FIVE lawyers and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for his legal defense? To play videos?

That is legal bullshit to fool people with weak minds, but is not a legal argument. It is a defense counsel doing his job. My client is innocent because other people were guilty too! That only works in the court of public opinion.

Here we have a factually correct statement that does not say what it appears to say. It is meant to lead the weak minded to reach a wrong conclusion. Again, it is a defense counsel doing his job of swaying public opinion.

There happens to be a law which states, "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." Of course, there is a section which provides, "(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult." Was Rittenhouse using his weapon for target practice under the supervision of an adult? Was he engaged in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult? While is is literally correct to state "that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older,” that omits the circumstances upon which it can be so possessed.

Obviously, this law does not entitle a 17-year old to carry a weapon around New York City. So, how does it entitle Rittenhouse to carry a weapon around Kenosha, Wisconsin?

Rittenhouse is in custody, having been charged with violating Wisconsin law. The bullshit you cited does not show that his lawyers argument, that everyone over the age of 16 could legally possess a dangerous weapon, depends on the success of an unlikely argument that the Wisconsin law is unconstitutional.

As for the bias of the Wisconsin authorities, Grosskreutz has NOT been charged, and is NOT in custody. If Rittenhouse cannot get a plea of self-defense before a jury, he can wipe is ass with the alleged Christmas present. He must win the argument on having a viable self-defense plea before any of that becomes relevant.

He needs five lawyers and a ton of money to defend against a biased prosecution team on a mission to convict him. There is a highly technical argument about whether Rittenhouse can claim self-defense.

As was shown in Gamons v. Indiana, there is a general rule that a plea of self-defense is barred when the claimant committed a criminal act with an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation. The prosecution is almost certain to visit that issue.

The legal war will not be fought over what happened on the video. The war will be fought over whether Rittenhouse can be barred from raising a claim to self-defense.