Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Definitely the bigger issue here.

The state had given up. Naturally, rightly or wrongly, the next step is people are going to take it into their own hands

I don’t know that the state had given up. There were something like 250 national guard deployed by Tuesday. But they had their hands full securing the courthouse, post office, and other public buildings that had been attacked the previous evenings, and protecting firefighters. So yeah, most of the community was on their own to protect their property from looters and arsonists.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Go ahead and ask yourself what the intent is behind carrying a loaded gun for protection (whether personal or property). What does one intend to do with that gun?Guns that aren’t loaded might be intended to deter looters and arsonists. Guns that are loaded are intended to shoot people.

If his gun wasn't loaded, KR would very likely be dead.

So the intent behind carrying a loaded gun is so it actually protects.


Edit - I say this as someone that abhors guns... Would not want one, will never own one (frankly don't really understand those that do). The point remains - in that situation, under those laws, Rittenhouse was legally able to carry the gun and (IMO from not really paying much attention to the whole thing) it served the purpose he - legally - intended.

[Fuzz]

Wouldn't insurance cover property damage? It's baffling to me people are told to go out and protect their property with deadly force. It's just stuff. Were they actually told by government's to go do that?

[Acey]

Wasn't following super closely, do we know the racial makeup of the jury?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Acey

Wasn't following super closely, do we know the racial makeup of the jury?

7 women, 5 men, and 1 of them a person of color

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wouldn't insurance cover property damage? It's baffling to me people are told to go out and protect their property with deadly force. It's just stuff. Were they actually told by government's to go do that?

Insurance in the USA generally offers poor coverage and is very expensive. On top of that you're looking at potentially years between a claim and actual payouts. Many businesses are going to be already operating on the edge already, following the pandemic, and deductibles and increases in rates may do them in. Businesses also rely on continued customer flow, so even if insurance covers everything, the customers don't just magically reappear once a business has been down for several months. You might then have to deal with relocation, increased lease payments at the new location, etc...

I'd say it's more than just "stuff". It's potentially a person's life work, or even many generations of a family's work.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengern...h=326b4d3c59d1

[2Stonedbirds]

Naw, not a big deal.
Like a few months ago when CTV had a UofC prof on after arsonists burned churches down due to the residential school debacle. As he explained, destruction of property is a valid form of protest cuz its just stuff.
I'm sure if one were to protest stupid ideas out of our institutions of higher learning by burning his house to the dirt, he'd be totes cool and good with it all.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

They died because they attacked a guy with a gun who was acting in self defense.

Come on counsellor. I would hope you are smarter than that. There is reasonable force for events. That is drilled into the heads of people who are permitted to conceal carry. I forgive you for not not knowing this, being Canadian and all, but there are rules for carrying, and quite a few extend to the level of force you get to apply in given situations.

Against an individual who makes verbal threats against you, you have no right to use lethal force. NONE. Against an individual who uses non-lethal force against you (a skateboard), you have no right to use lethal force. You would have to convince a jury of your peers that you honestly believed this was a life-or-death scenario, and an individual with a skateboard as a weapon is NOT a a life and death scenario. I really don't care who is wielding that deck, it's not a lethal weapon. Drawing your weapon in either of these situations can be construed as attempted murder, depending on the jurisdiction. Again, someone trained in handling weapons and concealed carry would know this. Rittenhouse was a high school kid who was required adult supervision to possess the weapon in question, so the responsibility is limited.

Originally Posted by you&me

If his gun wasn't loaded, KR would very likely be dead.

So the intent behind carrying a loaded gun is so it actually protects.

Dead? Unlikely. You're going to have to show the last individual killed with the use of a skateboard as a lethal weapon.

Edit - I say this as someone that abhors guns... Would not want one, will never own one (frankly don't really understand those that do). The point remains - in that situation, under those laws, Rittenhouse was legally able to carry the gun and (IMO from not really paying much attention to the whole thing) it served the purpose he - legally - intended.

He was not legally allowed to carry the gun, which is why Dominick Black - the person who furnished the weapon - is facing felony charges and 25 years in prison. The adult who provided the weapon to Rittenhouse is accountable for that action and frees Rittenhouse from weapons charges. Yeah, the law is ####ed up, and meant to protect minors, but in this case it is protecting a murderer.

I get that you don't understand this as you don't know anything about guns or gun ownership. There is a great responsibility with carrying a weapon, and this court case greatly weakened the responsibility involved with carrying. Now you can make the claim of self defense in any situation, which prior to this ####show was not the case. You had to know your #### to carry a gun. Now? Any ####### will be able to carry and kill at will, claiming self defense.

What have we learned out of this mess? Restrict ownership of skateboards, but forgive people for inappropriate use of deadly force using an automatic rifle as a means of self defense.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Matata

Is trying to steal someones assualt rifle in a violent attack still a laughably stupid way to die, or has it been elevated by recent events?

It’s going to be laughably sad when nobody does anything to stop a suspicious person with a gun because they don’t want to be shot in so-called self-defence. And people act all outraged when bystanders don’t do anything to help.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wouldn't insurance cover property damage? It's baffling to me people are told to go out and protect their property with deadly force. It's just stuff. Were they actually told by government's to go do that?

This is statement is the worst. You are just going to let anyone trash your house/ business, set it on fire, loot your belongings and carry on down the street with little to know consequence? Have you ever dealt with insurance? Claims can take weeks, months, even years in some cases. Insurance does not and should not entitle #freeforallism.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

How old are you and what did you do for “thrills” when you were younger? Because Rosenbaum was 36, a convicted criminal and actively lighting fires, destroying property and threatening people with violence. And he wasn’t shot for any of that. He was shot for pursing, attempting to corner and trying to grab someone’s rifle, someone he had earlier threatened with death if he caught him alone.

I'm just a crazy guy who doesn't think people should get shot on the street no matter their age I guess. If the other dude had taken his gun and shot him then I'd think the other guy was guilty as well.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

This is statement is the worst. You are just going to let anyone trash your house/ business, set it on fire, loot your belongings and carry on down the street with little to know consequence? Have you ever dealt with insurance? Claims can take weeks, months, even years in some cases. Insurance does not and should not entitle #freeforallism.

Dealing with insurance for a few months vs shooting and killing someone... tough call.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Against an individual who uses non-lethal force against you (a skateboard), you have no right to use lethal force. You would have to convince a jury of your peers that you honestly believed this was a life-or-death scenario, and an individual with a skateboard as a weapon is NOT a a life and death scenario. I really don't care who is wielding that deck, it's not a lethal weapon.



Dead? Unlikely. You're going to have to show the last individual killed with the use of a skateboard as a lethal weapon.

https://m.northcoastjournal.com/News...good-samaritan

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Azure

Pepsi is just trying to dance around the narrative and completely misses the point, as usual.

Guns were present and loaded because people were being told to protect their businesses.

If the state fails to do its duty in protecting its citizens, what else do we expect to happen?

If you don't want civilians walking around with firearms, go back to the root cause of the issue. Hint, its not the guns.

Is the root cause the indiscriminate killings of people like John Crawford, Eric Garner, Tamil Rice, Freddie Gray and others or is that too far back?

[Knightslayer]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think that's pushing it. Would you go defend property with an unloaded gun?

I actually wouldn't defend my property with any kind of gun but hey I'm Canadian and don't have a backwards outdated constitution to pin my backwards beliefs to.

[Knightslayer]

As expected it was not guilty and rightfully so by the letter of the law.

Problem is with the lettering of the law. How someone can bring a gun into a situation willingly and then claim self defence is baffling.

I know we have Americans on this site but wow what in the actual ####. That country is worse than some 3rd world countries.

[SoulOfTheFlame]

America seriously go f yourself and die. Watch this kid become a right wing Hero (he is already). Watch him on stage with Trump at Rallies in the coming weeks and months. Gross.

[GirlySports]

I'm surprised that you guys are surprised. Shooting a classroom of 6 year olds changed nothing. American will keep on keeping on.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

https://m.northcoastjournal.com/News...good-samaritan

So ####ing stupid, I'm not sure why I am even bothering to reply to this nonsense.

"While Bertain declined medical aid following the Dec. 22, 2018 incident, he later told family members he felt like his ribs had been broken and was found unresponsive three days later after he called 911 for help."

As opposed to the two people that were shot and killed within seconds during the Rittenhouse event. Those people didn't have a chance to walk away and have the option of receiving medical aid, they were dead as soon as they were shot. Immediately. Couldn't decline aid. They were already dead. That's the difference between a semi automatic rifle and a ####ing skateboard. Walk away and die three days later because of your own stupidity of refusing medical aid versus being dead on the spot.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I don't agree, this is America we're talking about. Guns are everywhere. This is more like someone bringing a tire iron everywhere in case they need to change a tire. They're not hoping they need it, but they have it anyway.

What do they intend to do with the tire iron?

Bringing a loaded gun means you intend to shoot someone. You might intend to do it “should the need arise” and what you define as a need might vary wildly, but you better believe the intention is to shoot people.

People who bring a tire iron generally intend to change a tire. It’s not there for show.

Originally Posted by Azure

Pepsi is just trying to dance around the narrative and completely misses the point, as usual.

I understand the points being made just fine. I’m offering counterpoints. This is called a conversation. For someone who made a point of saying they had me on ignore, you sure like reading my posts.

Originally Posted by you&me

If his gun wasn't loaded, KR would very likely be dead.

So the intent behind carrying a loaded gun is so it actually protects.


Edit - I say this as someone that abhors guns... Would not want one, will never own one (frankly don't really understand those that do). The point remains - in that situation, under those laws, Rittenhouse was legally able to carry the gun and (IMO from not really paying much attention to the whole thing) it served the purpose he - legally - intended.

1. We don’t know that. The one guy would have what, taken his non-loaded gun? And then what? You think all those people would have watched the kid with an unloaded gun get beaten to death?

2. If the intent behind carrying a loaded gun is so that it “protects,” then please explain the method in which a loaded gun protects better than an unloaded one. What is the mechanism that makes a loaded gun capable of “protection” over an unloaded one?

I’ll answer for you: it’s shooting people.

“My intent was to protect myself” … by shooting people.

The intent, therefore, was to shoot people.

It may be legal. But that’s no longer the debate. I believe everyone is aware of the ruling at this point. Making the point that it was legal is redundant.