Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I was pretty clear that everybody out on the street that night was putting themselves in a dangerous situation for the sake of thrills. But while he was an idiot for being there, and Wisconsin’s open carry laws are bound to foster that kind of idiocy, I don’t believe Rittenhouse deliberately set out to shoot anyone.

Then why did he bring an assault rifle? What other purpose besides killing human beings does it have in that situation? Was he planning to hunt some deer while cleaning up graffiti?

He went there to protect businesses from looters with an assault rifle. There's only one end game there. That was his intention.

[Royle9]

Very political case and very different views expressed in this thread - Best to stay out of however with that said I think there's 1 big item to address.

Moving forward is that if there's an individual with any sort of deadly weapon, its probably best to leave them alone and mind your own business unless its your job to apprehend.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

People were in the wrong for rioting, but they didn't need to get shot. I did things for 'thrills' when I was young as I'm sure a lot of people did. Guess we all got off lucky no one shot us...

If you CHOOSE to run with the bulls, you immediately accept the risk of your skull being shuttered in pieces. You may not deserve it, because you are young and stupid, but chances are good it might happen. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

[GirlySports]

It's the law. He's allowed to carry that assault rifle so we have to take the, he was looking for a fight, out of the equation.

[scobel]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Not surprising, but still a travesty of justice. Charges are not adjudicated wholly. Rittenhouse gunned down two individuals who had a skateboard as their weapon, their words a s a weapon, and a sidearm in a defensive position (expected by the CCW) as a weapon. All three were treated the same because the judge was a ####ing idiot and instructed the jury to do so. When you have a jury of his peers - mostly morons - you are going to get the outcome expected. Make no mistake, jurors are selected because they are morons, not because they are educated and will examine the intricacies of the law. I've been dismissed from two jury selection processes the second I mentioned I had a law enforcement background and a terminal degree. They don't want experts judging these matters, they want morons being involved because they are have no idea and are extremely pliable. This is yet another example of the process being broken.

Frankly, Rittenhouse should be guilty of murder of two of the individuals. The person who uttered death threats is an automatic conviction in a vacuum. The individual with the skateboard (a non lethal weapon) is an automatic. Both of these should have been at worst homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon. The third, where the EMT had a weapon that could inflict deadly force, is the onw he should have skated on. The other two, he should have roasted on. No discussion.

This is yet another dark day for the United States. What should have been an automatic judicial decision has been dragged out into a political decision, driven by a judge who had very political motivations for the handling of his courtroom. The United States is a steaming pile of ####, and this outcome is further proof of that belief. Self defense is now a defense for anything. The precedent has been established.

I really don't know the answer to this, but curious what if Rittenhouse doesn't have his gun? Is it his life that has now vanished and we are talking about charges against the victims of the gun violence? Maybe the violence doesn't occur because no gun is present or is he still beaten by the skateboards?

On a side note, how brave/stupid do you have to be to attack someone with a skateboard when they have a gun, I know, I would have been out of there or more likely not involved.

Rittenhouse put him self in a bad position and made some stupid decisions, their is no doubt about that, but I am not sure how many people would have not feared for their life being in his shoes. To be fair I am also not fully understanding how it all started.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I don't believe rioting is justifiable in any circumstance, but killing people for it is a bit much.

I’m confident that if any of the dozens of armed people watching the riots in Kenosha had just up and shot some rioters dead, they would have been charged, and likely convicted, with murder.

[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?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I’m confident that if any of the dozens of armed people watching the riots in Kenosha had just up and shot some rioters dead, they would have been charged, and likely convicted, with murder.

I do not share that confidence.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then why did he bring an assault rifle? What other purpose besides killing human beings does it have in that situation? Was he planning to hunt some deer while cleaning up graffiti?

He went there to protect businesses from looters with an assault rifle. There's only one end game there. That was his intention.

Dozens of people were there protecting businesses and homes with guns. Some of them were Black. Were they all intending to shoot someone? If so, all but Rittenhouse failed in their objective.

Alternatively, they were hoping to deter looters and arsonists. This isn’t Canada we’re talking about. People down there genuinely believe in the right to protect property with guns, crazy as it sounds to us.

[Mickey76]

The complicating factor to me is he wasn’t really protecting something that belongs to his family. If he was standing in front of his family’s (even distant) business or home and exactly what happened happened I would think his actions were justified. I just have a hard time with him wandering around.

However I also think people making light of the skateboard assault are naive. A skateboard is easily a deadly weapon. Just because it sounds like a toy doesn’t diminish the damage it can do.

As a side note my parents had a few Korean friends in the early 90’s and they (as well as their kids who were my age) always spoke of the Koreans who defended their stores during the LA riots with absolute reverence.

https://youtu.be/OCYT9Hew9ZU
“Police went away, Bye”

[Azure]

People seem to miss the fact that business owners were being told to protect their businesses.

Given the damage the rioters were inflicting, I'd imagine there were quite a few armed people standing around that night.

And why shouldn't they? Wouldn't most of us do the same to protect our livelihood?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Azure

People seem to miss the fact that business owners were being told to protect their businesses.

Given the damage the rioters were inflicting, I'd imagine there were quite a few armed people standing around that night.

And why shouldn't they? Wouldn't most of us do the same to protect our livelihood?

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

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by scobel

I really don't know the answer to this, but curious what if Rittenhouse doesn't have his gun? Is it his life that has now vanished and we are talking about charges against the victims of the gun violence? Maybe the violence doesn't occur because no gun is present or is he still beaten by the skateboards?

On a side note, how brave/stupid do you have to be to attack someone with a skateboard when they have a gun, I know, I would have been out of there or more likely not involved.

Rittenhouse put him self in a bad position and made some stupid decisions, their is no doubt about that, but I am not sure how many people would have not feared for their life being in his shoes. To be fair I am also not fully understanding how it all started.

Why was he being attacked? In the second incident he was running away from the scene where he killed someone (on self defence but that wasn’t clear at the time) and people were trying to stop him. If he had no gun none of that would have happened. I don’t know why he was being assaulted in the first case but I assume it was because he was dressed in camo and carrying a gun - ie was ‘the enemy’ to this crazy person, not just a random.

[Aarongavey]

Good day for GOP leadership though. Up and coming Republican superstar, Congressman Cawthorn was celebrating on social media saying that Americans have an obligation to be “armed and dangerous”.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Dozens of people were there protecting businesses and homes with guns. Some of them were Black. Were they all intending to shoot someone? If so, all but Rittenhouse failed in their objective.

Alternatively, they were hoping to deter looters and arsonists. This isn’t Canada we’re talking about. People down there genuinely believe in the right to protect property with guns, crazy as it sounds to us.

Yes. And they didn’t “fail” at anything. You’re confusing sole objective with deliberate intent.

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.

Guns that are bought and carried solely for hunting? That’s an example of a person who has no intention of shooting people.

Same person also stores that gun loaded with the purpose of easy access in case of a break-in/trespasser? That’s a person who intends to shoot someone.

[GirlySports]

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

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yes. And they didn’t “fail” at anything. You’re confusing sole objective with deliberate intent.

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.

Guns that are bought and carried solely for hunting? That’s an example of a person who has no intention of shooting people.

Same person also stores that gun loaded with the purpose of easy access in case of a break-in/trespasser? That’s a person who intends to shoot someone.

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.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's the law. He's allowed to carry that assault rifle so we have to take the, he was looking for a fight, out of the equation.

Ok - then why did he chose to leave the private property he "was defending" after being told repeatedly not to just minutes prior by not only the police on scene but the aggravated bystanders as well? Why did he cross police lines?, why did he wander about by himself after being verbally threatened earlier in the night? Why did he allegedly point his gun at numerous people? These factors can't be overlooked. I think a real case of provocation can certainly be made here.. His sheer ignorance, lack of awareness, and need to be the center of attention (he just wanted to be famous bruh) resulted in the deaths of two men.

[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.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

People were in the wrong for rioting, but they didn't need to get shot. I did things for 'thrills' when I was young as I'm sure a lot of people did. Guess we all got off lucky no one shot us.


And again - I don't disagree with the verdict. I do disagree that people should be parading around with guns.

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.