Ricky Schroder and Mike Lindel bail out Kylie Rittenhouse

essentialsaltes said:

And they have succeeded.

A Wisconsin judge has modified the release conditions for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen charged with killing two men amid protests in Kenosha last year, after prosecutors alleged he drank beers and was "serenaded" with the Proud Boys anthem at a bar while out on bail.

Under the new terms, Rittenhouse is barred from drinking alcohol and prohibited from associating with any group or person known to menace others on the basis of things like race or religion. He can't have any weapons.

Click to expand...

What a travesty of justice, not being allowed to get drunk with your Nazi buddies. Truly this is cruel and unusual punishment.

Prosecutors on Wednesday sought a new arrest warrant and higher bond for Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with fatally shooting two people amid protests in Kenosha, Wis., last summer, alleging that the 18-year-old from Illinois failed to notify authorities of a change in address.

Invoking the outside funding that bought Rittenhouse’s release, prosecutors asked a judge to raise Rittenhouse’s bond by $200,000. Rittenhouse and his family did not post money toward his release previously and he already faces life in prison, so he has “no financial stake” in following the rules of his bond, officials argued.

It is “extremely unusual for a defendant facing a charge of first-degree intentional homicide in Kenosha County to post cash bond and be released from custody pending trial,” prosecutors state in their motion, saying it is crucial that officials be able to monitor Rittenhouse’s whereabouts. “Rarely does our community see accused murderers roaming about freely.”

He violated his parole by moving and not registering a new address with the courts. His legal team will not provide his address if it will not be kept confidential.

Now a new warrant is being considered:

Prosecutors ask for Kyle Rittenhouse arrest warrant after questions over current address - CNN

Should have never been allowed a bond to begin with. I thought there was no bail on murder .

Lg2000 said:

Should have never been allowed a bond to begin with. I thought there was no bail on murder .

Click to expand...

As far as I know, you can bond out on anything unless you are deemed a flight risk.

ThatRobGuy said:

...but where would that end though?

It's basically like saying "If you can trick enough people from one group into buying into a hoax in order to troll them, so much so, that their opponents started actually doing that thing just to antagonize them, now we all have to pretend it's real just to validate their original reaction to it"

If I started an online hoax tomorrow (just to try to trick people from the far-left) claiming that those alligator shirts that people wear...
View attachment 293443


...is actually a coded message among anti-gay groups that allows them to identify to each other as being part of the hate group.

And a bunch of left-wing folks decided to be so outraged about these shirts, that they started calling for their boycott, and as a response right-wing people (some of which may or may not be actual anti-gay group members) started wearing them just to trigger them...

Does it make more sense for the people on the left to say "ok, you got us...good one, we got tricked", or to pretend a hoax is real and ban alligator shirts just so they don't have to admit they got tricked?


Doubling down on the outrage over okey-dokey hand gesture, even after it was proven to just a be a hoax, is reminiscent of the doubling-down we saw from some of the left-leaning publications after the Jessie Smollett case ended up being a hoax...

Instead of admitting they rushed to judgment and got fooled, and retracting their initial comments, they tried to rationalize it by saying things like "Well, it just goes to show how bad the systemic failures are in America when he felt he needed to go this far and stage an attack just to finally raise awareness about Black and LGBT issues"...or they tried to deflect with articles like this one.

Jussie Smollett isn't the problem. We are

Click to expand...

It's Pepe the Frog.

Well, update:

Kyle Rittenhouse fires attorney who helped raise his bail

Mayzoo said:

He violated his parole by moving and not registering a new address with the courts. His legal team will not provide his address if it will not be kept confidential.

Now a new warrant is being considered:

Prosecutors ask for Kyle Rittenhouse arrest warrant after questions over current address - CNN

Click to expand...

They should also be considering obstruction charges against his legal team if they can demonstrate that the lawyers know where he is.

essentialsaltes said:

Rittenhouse allegedly flashed white power signs, serenaded with Proud Boys anthem during bar visit with his mom after his arraignment

During Kyle Rittenhouse’s recent visit to a Racine County tavern, he drank beer, flashed white power signs while posing for photos, and was serenaded with the Proud Boys anthem, according to documents filed by prosecutors Wednesday.

Police found Rittenhouse did not violate the conditions of his $2 million bond — state law allows people who are underage to drink if accompanied by a parent or guardian. But they did forward the video on to prosecutors.

And the prosecutors are seeking to change the conditions of his bond

Click to expand...

As they should.

This young man is playing with fire. I hope for his sake he turns his life around, but it will probably take prison for him to rethink that.

ThatRobGuy said:

I'm not talking about bullying...obviously if someone's making verifiable threats or physically confronting other people, that's a full-blown legal issue.

I'm talking about people getting bent out of shape over hand-gestures...which isn't the same.

Obviously someone flipping the bird at someone is considered an "offensive hand gesture to most", but if I see two frat bros posing for a lame selfie at a bar (you know the one, where they both flip off the camera to look "edgy" and "cool"...some Jersey Shore nonsense), then that's not bullying.

Click to expand...

Are you really that out of touch? He's showing allegiance to a domestic terror group.

FireDragon76 said:

Are you really that out of touch? He's showing allegiance to a domestic terror group.

Click to expand...

The hand gesture is a "troll the left" gesture. While it's true that white nationalists would be a subset of the group that enjoys "trolling the left", not every fad they decide to hop on board with should be immediately considered "a showing of allegiance to a domestic terror group" and "off limits" for everyone else.

"Raising the right fist" is a hand gesture that had been coopted by numerous left leaning extremists groups over the years, including Black separatist groups like the Nation of Islam.

So because NOI also chose to do that, does that mean that every current social justice movement that engages in that hand gesture is showing allegiance to a separatist group?

By the logic you're invoking, if a group of internet trolls made up a hoax that "McNugget" was a secret racist term white supremacists used and right-wing people started using it to troll the left, we'd be having a conversation about how Kyle violated his bond conditions by eating at McDonalds and posing for a pic next to a Ronald McDonald picture they had inside.


See, this is the issue that many on the far left have...

"Context is everything" when the discussion is centered around one of their own.
(I had to get into a five page debate with someone on here when they were claiming that Patrice Cullors saying she was a marxist 'doesn't really mean she's a marxist'), along with exhausting tedious circular talking points about 'well, what really constitutes a group?'

But when the subject is a far-right type, the conversation centers around whatever convenient superficial explanation makes them look the most terrible.

Nithavela said:

You ignored my actual point: if a movement adopts a sign, it doesn't matter that it wasn't always that movements sign. It is NOW, so it must be treated like a sign of that movement NOW.

The right wing people are NOT only using the OK sign to antagonise the left. They are using it as an actual sign of membership.

Click to expand...

So everyone that gives the OK sign is a white supremacist now?

Nithavela said:

You ignored my actual point: if a movement adopts a sign, it doesn't matter that it wasn't always that movements sign. It is NOW, so it must be treated like a sign of that movement NOW.

The right wing people are NOT only using the OK sign to antagonise the left. They are using it as an actual sign of membership.

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore your point... I simply pointed out that it creates a problematic and unrealistic precedent.

If everything that's adopted by an extreme group NOW has to be treated as a sign of the movement NOW, you'd better not let them know about that new standard, or they'll just adopt everything and anything they can just to mess with other people.

By the standard you're setting, if neo nazis adopted "Hey, how ya doin'" or "how's it going" as their official greeting, nobody would ever be able to use those commonly used expressions again.

I don't want to live in a world where Richard Spencer says "Pizza is the official food choice of the White Pride movement", and as a result, I have to stop eating pizza because pizza is now "racist".

What I'm still trying to wrap my head around, is why all of the emphasis by the media is being put exclusively on Rittenhouse...while trying to make the other guys he was against seem like heroes and victims or "martyrs for the cause"

There's no other explanation than the fact that it's politically motivated.

If one member of the Outlaws MC got in a confrontation with three members of the Hells Angels, and it ended in violence and the Outlaws member shot two Angels (who were also breaking laws), nobody would be exclusively focused on the one Outlaws member, everyone would rightfully acknowledge that they were all bad and what happened is the end result of bad people being allowed to run amuck in a a lawless environment.

If you boil the circumstance down to what it actually is:
One 17 year old kid with a history of anger issues (who was under age and shouldn't be carrying a gun)
vs.
One convicted domestic abuser
One convicted criminal charged with previously carrying a firearm while intoxicated (who also happened to be carrying a gun, that's a no-no for people with prior gun offenses)
One convicted sex offender who shouldn't have been around minors in the first place
(Even snopes had to concede on those aspects)

-Considering that evidence, the claim that Rosenbaum at one point was convicted of sexually abusing at least one child before his death was true. (and there's no dispute in that he was pursuing Rittenhouse and throwing things at him prior to being shot)

-Next, we analyzed criminal records involving Huber, and determined it also accurate to state he was charged with domestic abuse. We uncovered a Kenosha County criminal complaint that outlined his first serious run-in with law enforcement, in December 2012. And per that complaint, Huber, who was 18 years old at the time, threatened his brother and grandmother at their home with a knife, choked the brother, and demanded that they follow his orders. The complaint said the brother wanted to take Huber to a hospital, apparently for emergency mental health help, but Huber resisted. In the end, he was charged with strangulation and suffocation and false imprisonment, both of which are felony crimes.

-Grosskreutz was found guilty in 2016 of breaking Wisconsin’s law governing the use of dangerous weapons — a misdemeanor offense — per Milwaukee County court records. He had apparently gone somewhere “armed while intoxicated,”

So the fact that so much emphasis is put on singling one particular participant out as "the bad guy" in all this can't be construed as anything other than "The one on the conservative side was the bad guy".

I can't help but feel like if this was a story about one 17 year old member of the MS-13, getting in a lethal confrontation with 3 members of the crips (all of whom had egregious criminal backgrounds), and it ended violence, people would be more objective with regards to seeing it for what it was.

rjs330 said:

So everyone that gives the OK sign is a white supremacist now?

Click to expand...

No.

rjs330 said:

So everyone that gives the OK sign is a white supremacist now?

Click to expand...

Everyone who does it to bond over a brotherhood based On race and trolling another group of people, yes.

ThatRobGuy said:

What I'm still trying to wrap my head around, is why all of the emphasis by the media is being put exclusively on Rittenhouse...while trying to make the other guys he was against seem like heroes and victims or "martyrs for the cause"

There's no other explanation than the fact that it's politically motivated.

If one member of the Outlaws MC got in a confrontation with three members of the Hells Angels, and it ended in violence and the Outlaws member shot two Angels (who were also breaking laws), nobody would be exclusively focused on the one Outlaws member, everyone would rightfully acknowledge that they were all bad and what happened is the end result of bad people being allowed to run amuck in a a lawless environment.

If you boil the circumstance down to what it actually is:
One 17 year old kid with a history of anger issues (who was under age and shouldn't be carrying a gun)
vs.
One convicted domestic abuser
One convicted criminal charged with previously carrying a firearm while intoxicated (who also happened to be carrying a gun, that's a no-no for people with prior gun offenses)
One convicted sex offender who shouldn't have been around minors in the first place
(Even snopes had to concede on those aspects)

-Considering that evidence, the claim that Rosenbaum at one point was convicted of sexually abusing at least one child before his death was true. (and there's no dispute in that he was pursuing Rittenhouse and throwing things at him prior to being shot)

-Next, we analyzed criminal records involving Huber, and determined it also accurate to state he was charged with domestic abuse. We uncovered a Kenosha County criminal complaint that outlined his first serious run-in with law enforcement, in December 2012. And per that complaint, Huber, who was 18 years old at the time, threatened his brother and grandmother at their home with a knife, choked the brother, and demanded that they follow his orders. The complaint said the brother wanted to take Huber to a hospital, apparently for emergency mental health help, but Huber resisted. In the end, he was charged with strangulation and suffocation and false imprisonment, both of which are felony crimes.

-Grosskreutz was found guilty in 2016 of breaking Wisconsin’s law governing the use of dangerous weapons — a misdemeanor offense — per Milwaukee County court records. He had apparently gone somewhere “armed while intoxicated,”

So the fact that so much emphasis is put on singling one particular participant out as "the bad guy" in all this can't be construed as anything other than "The one on the conservative side was the bad guy".

I can't help but feel like if this was a story about one 17 year old member of the MS-13, getting in a lethal confrontation with 3 members of the crips (all of whom had egregious criminal backgrounds), and it ended violence, people would be more objective with regards to seeing it for what it was.

Click to expand...

Sorry guy but the backstory of the victims, as distasteful as their lives were, bears 0 weight on manslaughter. Just the actions of all involved

But in my personal opinion I've read what I consider to be the best article on this situation. Sadly it is not safe for cf. Essentially it laid out the ridiculously stupid decisions made by Kyle leading up to the incident and the victims as well. They were all monumentally stupid. It was stupid....everyone. some people paid for their stupidity. Kyle is getting lauded and millions thrown at him. Doesn't make his decisions smart or blameless rhough.

Rittenhouse reminds me of Zimmerman, except he has a lot of fans.

That is, if this goes to trial, he will be utterly exonerated. The only thing they technically have him on is a misdemeanor weapons charge (regarding being under 18) in a state where even then the law is squishy.

So once this plays out it will not go well for those that believe he will lose. And to be clear, I followed the Zimmerman/Martin case very closely and was amazed they even charged Zimmerman based on all the evidence I read. i.e. I saw the trial as an embarrassment for the prosecutors who were politically forced to bring the charges, and I was not the least bit surprised by the outcome.

The same will happen here. It's all on video, including events before he ever pulled the trigger. The only legal risk he's looking at is being a 17 year old with a gun. But even then, as I said, it's not ALWAYS illegal for a minor to have a gun in that state, but it mostly involves hunting.

I'm very much looking forward to the trial phase. BTW, someone said he violated his parole. That's not possible since he's not on parole. He's not been convicted or incarcerated for anything yet.

rambot said:

Sorry guy but the backstory of the victims, as distasteful as their lives were, bears 0 weight on manslaughter. Just the actions of all involved

But in my personal opinion I've read what I consider to be the best article on this situation. Sadly it is not safe for cf. Essentially it laid out the ridiculously stupid decisions made by Kyle leading up to the incident and the victims as well. They were all monumentally stupid. It was stupid....everyone. some people paid for their stupidity. Kyle is getting lauded and millions thrown at him. Doesn't make his decisions smart or blameless rhough.

Click to expand...

Sure, obviously in a legal sense, the backstories of the victims don't matter.

However, it does establish a few things:
A) that they, too, were prone to confrontational and erratic behavior. Which obviously escalates things. (there's also video of Rosembaum earlier in the night trying to light things on fire at a gas station, and when prevented by armed people who were defending the business, he began throwing things at them and getting in their face saying "I dare you to shoot me <word white people aren't supposed to be saying>!" (he must of thought he had street cred). Can't link full video here due language, but Yahoo ran an article with an abbreviated and censored version of of the earlier encounter
'Shoot Me': Kenosha Shooting Victim Seen in Earlier Video Confronting Armed Men

B) the attempts by certain media outlets to portray the 3 victims as "great guys" (doing the typical "let's show old photos of them looking all happy and innocent") is being done as a means to over-vilify Rittenhouse in the court of public opinion.

For instance, CNN ran what came across as a loving tribute to Anthony Huber...at one point even describing him as a hero. Why they did this? It's a lot easier to shift public opinion by saying:

"Kyle shot a guy who was a loving friend, who nobly put his life on the line for social justice!"

...rather than...

"Kyle shot a guy who once held his own grandma at knife point and tried to strangle his own brother, after he tried to hit him with a skateboard as a response to shooting the first guy, who was on camera multiple times earlier in the night trying to vandalize businesses, and getting in the faces of armed people who were preventing him from doing it"


It doesn't remove Rittenhouse's role/responsibility in the shootings, but it does establish that the other 3 have histories that clearly demonstrate a propensity for escalation rather than just assuming that Kyle had a chip on his shoulder and was just out to shoot at random protestors.

If the latter were the case, what are the Vegas odds for him picking 3 people at random to "start stuff" with, and all 3 just so happen to have egregious criminal backgrounds? I'd have to say pretty slim right?

As to where, if one considers their histories, then the story makes a lot more sense. If a person has no qualms with doing something like carrying a gun while intoxicated, or sexually abusing a child, or holding their own family members at knife point, then it becomes much more reasonable to believe that they're the types of impulsive people who would certainly get mad if someone with a gun was trying to prevent them from damaging businesses, and wouldn't think twice about escalating it.

If the victims happened to be:
1) A salvation army bell ringer
2) A head of the local chapter of ASPCA
3) A local well-respected social worker
(all with clean backgrounds and no history of violence)

...then the narrative of "Kyle was just a randomly hateful person with a chip on his shoulder and was just looking for an excuse to shoot at political rivals" would be a bit more plausible.

Efforts from certain media outlets seem to be attempting to portray Rittenhouse in the same light as Dylan Roof (who did just randomly shoot a bunch of people unprovoked)

ThatRobGuy said:

Sure, obviously in a legal sense, the backstories of the victims don't matter.

However, it does establish a few things:
A) that they, too, were prone to confrontational and erratic behavior. Which obviously escalates things. (there's also video of Rosembaum earlier in the night trying to light things on fire at a gas station, and when prevented by armed people who were defending the business, he began throwing things at them and getting in their face saying "I dare you to shoot me <word white people aren't supposed to be saying>!" (he must of thought he had street cred). Can't link full video here due language, but Yahoo ran an article with an abbreviated and censored version of of the earlier encounter
'Shoot Me': Kenosha Shooting Victim Seen in Earlier Video Confronting Armed Men

B) the attempts by certain media outlets to portray the 3 victims as "great guys" (doing the typical "let's show old photos of them looking all happy and innocent") is being done as a means to over-vilify Rittenhouse in the court of public opinion.

For instance, CNN ran what came across as a loving tribute to Anthony Huber...at one point even describing him as a hero. Why they did this? It's a lot easier to shift public opinion by saying:

"Kyle shot a guy who was a loving friend, who nobly put his life on the line for social justice!"

...rather than...

"Kyle shot a guy who once held his own grandma at knife point and tried to strangle his own brother, after he tried to hit him with a skateboard as a response to shooting the first guy, who was on camera multiple times earlier in the night trying to vandalize businesses, and getting in the faces of armed people who were preventing him from doing it"


It doesn't remove Rittenhouse's role/responsibility in the shootings, but it does establish that the other 3 have histories that clearly demonstrate a propensity for escalation rather than just assuming that Kyle had a chip on his shoulder and was just out to shoot at random protestors.

If the latter were the case, what are the Vegas odds for him picking 3 people at random to "start stuff" with, and all 3 just so happen to have egregious criminal backgrounds? I'd have to say pretty slim right?

As to where, if one considers their histories, then the story makes a lot more sense. If a person has no qualms with doing something like carrying a gun while intoxicated, or sexually abusing a child, or holding their own family members at knife point, then it becomes much more reasonable to believe that they're the types of impulsive people who would certainly get mad if someone with a gun was trying to prevent them from damaging businesses, and wouldn't think twice about escalating it.

Click to expand...

This whole thing really is looking to be playing out the way the zimmerman thing did. Guilty in the court of public opinion, innocent in a court of law. This one is even more black and white. I've seen the videos and the interview with Kyle before it all started. The left is terrible at choosing their heroes - and villains.