Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It wasn't legal. In Wisconsin, anyone over the age of 18 can openly carry, but he wasn't 18 at the time. I think anyone would have been justified in disarming him.

That's just a misdemeanor and not a case where being chased down and assaulted by a mob is justified

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That's just a misdemeanor and not a case where being chased down and assaulted by a mob is justified

Also how would anyone know he was 17. He’s guilty of some things. Murder is definitely not one of them.

[Knightslayer]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It wasn't legal. In Wisconsin, anyone over the age of 18 can openly carry, but he wasn't 18 at the time. I think anyone would have been justified in disarming him.

Nobody would have known his age so nobody would have been justified in disarming him and even if he had his ID stapled to his forehead, you wouldn't be justified in pointing a gun at him to disarm him.

[DownInFlames]

This judge is a piece of work. I guess you don’t have to be a genius to be on the bench when you run unopposed three straight elections.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1459216913536634881

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That's just a misdemeanor and not a case where being chased down and assaulted by a mob is justified

No, what Rittenhouse did was not a misdemeanor. He was not legally allowed to carry a weapon - open or concealed - by Wisconsin state law. The hunting statute does not apply here, because Ritterhouse was NOT accompanied by a "mentor" beyond the age of consent, nor was he subject to Wisconsin state law as he brought the weapon from Illinois. Suggesting as such is beyond the level of stupidity, as it is trying to leverage a loophole where parents can take their children on a hunt and carry a weapon, a weapon owned by someone compliant with WISCONSIN state law, not a resident of Illinois. Worse, Rittenhouse transported a weapon across state lines, which is a federal crime, not a misdemeanor. To suggest this weapons violation is just a misdemeanor is willfully ignorant or just making excuses for his actions.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

No, what Rittenhouse did was not a misdemeanor. He was not legally allowed to carry a weapon - open or concealed - by Wisconsin state law. The hunting statute does not apply here, because Ritterhouse was NOT accompanied by a "mentor" beyond the age of consent, nor was he subject to Wisconsin state law as he brought the weapon from Illinois. Suggesting as such is beyond the level of stupidity, as it is trying to leverage a loophole where parents can take their children on a hunt and carry a weapon, a weapon owned by someone compliant with WISCONSIN state law, not a resident of Illinois. Worse, Rittenhouse transported a weapon across state lines, which is a federal crime, not a misdemeanor. To suggest this weapons violation is just a misdemeanor is willfully ignorant or just making excuses for his actions.

I'm not making excuses for him. It's what's happening. The only weapons-related charge he's facing is a misdemeanor. He's literally not being charged with anything you just described.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah I agree. Rittenhouse himself (I personally believe) is a dangerous psychopath. But the real problem here is that the United States has devolved to such an extent where a teenager wielding a military grade assault rifle with no training was enabled to attend these protests as part of a "militia" and no one is really targeting any of that part for change.

Most apt post in this thread, above all else.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Now, say that if the accused were black, or brown, or a minority of any sort. Therein lies the problem. If Rittenhouse wee black in this situation, he would already be on death row. Multiple killings with an illegal firearm? Roasting on a spit.

Yeah, there's the problem, and exactly what the argument of institutionalized racism continues to be front and center in these discussions. Rittenhouse is considered innocent because of the color of his skin. If a black or brown person tried this, they would be crucified long before the politically driven media had a chance to wade into the issue.

He'd be dead, if he was not white, almost without question. But if he survived, yes he'd be easily convicted and put away for life, most likely.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If you bring an assault rifle to riot, there's no real self defense anymore. You're a willing combatant at that point

Well this is really wrong. Legally, it’s super duper wrong. Morally, in a land where gun laws allow for ARs to be carried, it’s unconscionable.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Well this is really wrong. Legally, it’s super duper wrong. Morally, in a land where gun laws allow for ARs to be carried, it’s unconscionable.

You’re right, he wasn’t bringing the AR for combat with humans, he was actually going deer hunting. Morally, that’s just what makes sense.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Well this is really wrong. Legally, it’s super duper wrong. Morally, in a land where gun laws allow for ARs to be carried, it’s unconscionable.

I'm not familiar with their laws. But you can't enter a fist fight and claim self defense when you punch back. The guy went there to shoot someone. And he did

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not familiar with their laws. But you can't enter a fist fight and claim self defense when you punch back. The guy went there to shoot someone. And he did

What's going to help his case is how much he tried to run away first

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not familiar with their laws. But you can't enter a fist fight and claim self defense when you punch back. The guy went there to shoot someone. And he did

By this logic, having hands means you’re engaged in a fist fight?

Again, this is where it is totally legal to walk around with a gun. And again, this guy RAN AWAY from the first guy he ultimately shot. What a strange way to become a willing combatant running away is. Not after he shot his gun, not after he threw a punch, but after an aggressor who said theywere going to kill him tried to engage.

If you haven’t seen it, watch the video where this guy is running away. Not walking or jogging, he’s running for his life. I can’t believe that any sane person would equate that to a trigger happy hunter.

Or share what piece of evidence your basing this idea that he wanted to shoot people was? And no, carrying a gun is not evidence of this, nor is it an waiving of the right to self defence. If that’s your position, there’s 3 million Americans who you believe can be shot dead at any time.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Or share what piece of evidence your basing this idea that he wanted to shoot people was?

Traveling 40+ miles, across state lines, with a weapon he freely admitted he knew was not legal to possess.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not familiar with their laws. But you can't enter a fist fight and claim self defense when you punch back. The guy went there to shoot someone. And he did

Dozens of armed vigilantes went to Kenosha that day. Did they all go there to shoot people, and all except Rittenhouse failed at their efforts?

America is a heavily armed society. At all of the riots last summer there were dozens and dozens of armed civilians. Among the rioters. Among the vigilantes. Among the locals trying to protect their property.

As I remarked earlier, everyone who remained at these scenes once the looting and burning kicked off was willingly exposing themselves to a potentially lethal encounter, armed or not. But it’s up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis who acted with deliberation in a fatality. Just being there with a firearm clearly isn’t grounds for reaching that conclusion.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Traveling 40+ miles, across state lines, with a weapon he freely admitted he knew was not legal to possess.

There's a lot of people in this thread who are so confident of their opinion on this but they get basic facts wrong.

He did not cross state lines with a gun. He got it in Kenosha from his friend

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

There's a lot of people in this thread who are so confident of their opinion on this but they get basic facts wrong.

He did not cross state lines with a gun. He got it in Kenosha from his friend

There seems to be an inverse relationship between how strongly people feel about Rittenhouse and how much effort they’ve put into learning the details about what happened.

[Matata]

Kyle just wanted to be in a "Protester about to destroy some property is scared away by cool guy with a big gun" meme, but he under estimated the tenacity of a pedophile and women beater when they join forces.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Traveling 40+ miles, across state lines, with a weapon he freely admitted he knew was not legal to possess.

Even if that were true (it's not), how does that show he had any intent to "go shoot people"? Good luck to the Prosecution if that's what they will try to argue in closing on Monday.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Matata

Kyle just wanted to be in a "Protester about to destroy some property is scared away by cool guy with a big gun" meme, but he under estimated the tenacity of a pedophile and women beater when they join forces.

Isn't this essentially what happened? He thought it would be cool to just show up and be a "protector" and get a few pictures of it. Things quickly spiraled out of control and then the shootings happened.

Sent from my VOG-L04 using Tapatalk